For every action there is a reaction. So said Newton. Although he was referring to the law of motion, I think that this law can also be applied to nature. Even if we toss away a sweet wrapper, a bird may use it to build a nest. A child may spill their cola and soon enough some ants may come along and feed on it. If we construct a building where there used to be wasteland, then nature will react. Some creatures will avoid the new building; others will be attracted to it. In recent times some authorities have built special underground tunnels for badgers under new roads. In fact there are countless examples of schemes where nature has been given a helping hand. The trouble is, do we know what effect our "improvements" are having on the rest of the eco-system? Is there a danger that we will do even more damage? It could also be argued that humans, including its roads, buildings and machines, are also part of the eco-system. Should we try to neutralize the effect of our actions on other species? Another consideration is the problem of extinction. We tend to try to save creatures that are on the point of extinction. It could be argued that an endangered species is no longer viable and should be left alone to die out in order to allow the remainder to thrive. We increasingly fiddle with nature in order to help it out. The problem is that for every action that affects nature, there will be a reaction. We come along and try to prevent the reaction by instituting another action, which itself may produce other reactions that we may not have intended. The problem is rarely debated, it seems. Surely there are two extremes: 1. build and be dammed and 2. don't build at all. We seem to be moving to a mid point of: build and manage nature. This is where there may be a problem. Surely we are not qualified to manage the might of nature. Perhaps we should respect nature and allow it the dignity to cope on its own with our more necessary building works. For the less important buildings and machines - well perhaps we should not build them at all. I am suggesting that we in fact go to BOTH extremes, but not take the middle road of trying to manage nature. We should at least have a decent debate about it. Whole industries have built up around nature conversation, forest and river management. I wonder sometimes if the conservation industry itself is a mighty machine that needs to be constantly fed with more and more things to do in order to employ its ever growing army. Surely we can reduce our need to construct ever more powerful machines and larger and more numerous buildings but also, we surely can reduce our need to interfere with Mother Nature and allow her some dignity. Nature has the ability to bite back. If you are going to build a house where there were once fields, you may find out that some creatures will not be aware of trespass laws and will try to enter your new home. This is particularly true of houseflies. Try building a tunnel for them! I suppose you could be very eco-friendly and obtain thousands of spiders to weave webs in order to trap them. But then, kidnapping all these spiders and farming them yourself could deprive the food chain of a resource and destabilize it. Perhaps it is best not to fiddle too much with nature. Just buy a fly killer machine from http://www.eeeee.co.uk. That way the flies will only be killed as required - and nature will cope very well on its own. |
