# Can technology and nature coexist?



## CoopV (Nov 6, 2011)

Or is technology always bound to go against nature and disrupt it in some way? 

I wonder if it would be possible to create technology and thus a civilization that coexists perfectly with nature since it seems like all of our current technology seems to disrupt it in some way. 

Could we ever adapt our technology to work in harmony with nature?


----------



## simplystrange (Aug 29, 2012)

When classical music is played for plants (grape vines in the instance I'm thinking of), they grow faster, larger, and in the dirction of the music. But then again, music doesn't depend on technology. So, that doesn't answer your question at all.

It's interesting, I really don't know.

I feel like maybe not, simply because technology is so unnatural. 

But it's worth some deeper thought.

I'm interested to see what others think.


----------



## CoopV (Nov 6, 2011)

I also wonder if we could build a technology that is based more on nature and so would be like a super-nature if that makes any sense. Like instead of a technology that would destroy nature it would be one based on nature that would enhance it. 

I feel like that will be the next renaissance. A reconstruction of technology and civilization that is built upon and enhances nature instead of destroys it. I could only hope that will eventually happen though since it seems such a distant vision.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

No. At least not with the population we currently have. We have way too many people and it's really hurting the planet.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

I'm actually very comfortable with the idea of technology replacing nature. Once it's been fine tuned and supersedes nature in efficacy for life that is.


----------



## ibage (May 5, 2012)

Technology is nature. Think about it, eventually this planet will one day stop providing for all life no matter how much we preserve it. The sun will become too hot and the oceans will dry up. What exactly are we supposed to do? Animals adapt in nature and evolve that way. Primates use tools to make things easier and that's exactly what man did. I think technology is only a natural evolutionary path.

That being said, we need to preserve nature as much as we can. It's shown us over and over that it can still best man and therefore, is a force we need to respect. If we're going to keep growing as a species, we need both nature and technology in tact. But seeing as how important lessons like that are ignored all the time, it's not going to be that easy.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

I've seen a lot of natural sights in my time, UNESCO world heritage sites, national parks, clear blue oceans, but there's nothing that excites me more than a good factory. I have to say that I was at least as excited by the tour of the furniture factory that Italian businessman gave me and my dad than a lot of the Thai national parks I've been to.


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

eros5th said:


> I also wonder if we could build a technology that is based more on nature and so would be like a super-nature if that makes any sense. Like instead of a technology that would destroy nature it would be one based on nature that would enhance it.
> 
> I feel like that will be the next renaissance. A reconstruction of technology and civilization that is built upon and enhances nature instead of destroys it. I could only hope that will eventually happen though since it seems such a distant vision.


I would also say if technology did progress enough this would be the result. If DNA could be understood enough to create humans that are extra resilient, and able to upload their consciousness onto a super computer.



josue0098 said:


> No. At least not with the population we currently have. We have way too many people and it's really hurting the planet.


This is because technology is being used wrongly. I think the paths of technology have many possible dead ends that should be anticipated and avoided. Overpopulation and nuclear annihilation are some obvious possibilities in the present. Another was depicted in the film "Forbidden Planet", where a machine that could bring thoughts into reality ended up destroying the civilisation.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

All of our technology is rooted in math and physics - nature's laws. Our minds, also products of nature, create this technology. I don't really see the divide here. Technology can't exist without nature, and obviously it does exist.

The only question is whether or not _we_ have the ability co-exist with nature/technology long-term. That's debatable.


----------



## unINFalliPle (Jul 8, 2012)

Hey. This is interesting to think about. I actually did a project on the topic. I made a painting and wrote an essay on the negative effects of technological advancement on nature. In the painting, I included things like an oil spill in an ocean, a bird getting "choked" by a musical note coming out of the radio from a girl's window(not that I don't like music), and other stuff like that... We've privatized land, making it our own, doing with it as we will, so we haven't put much importance on nature. I'm not sure of the conditions in which certain things have to meet environmental standards, to create that unity with both. We certainly have used up a lot of natural resources. And we are advancing with technology, sometimes miraculously. 

Are they not coexisting now?  In a, for sure, altered state. Unfortunately, we've become a society of consumers. Using animals, polluting the air, destroying forests, etc. There are natural and renewable energy sources but there are problems with those. Money is important to people, so it looks like the situation won't get looked at further until something drastic takes place.


----------



## 22575 (May 23, 2011)

Depends on your perspective of what is nature and what is "coexisting". Some people argue that any harm to any living thing is harm to the environment, others argue that creating unlivable conditions for humans constitutes harming the environment. The unfortunate thing about people who debate both of these sides is that they tend to speak of the environment/nature as this static object. Our ecosystem is far from static...

The planet oscillates between ice ages and warm cycles which forces life to adapt. Mass extinctions and 'bottlenecks' have occurred numerous times (the only reason we are alive is because our human ancestors survived a bottleneck where there were only a couple thousand humans left on the entire planet!). So the fact that people are so scared of humans destroying the environment through technology is a tad humorous to me when I look at it the other way and wonder if the environment will destroy humans if we cannot create a technology to adapt to the next natural change in climate. But still, human induced climate change is a serious matter.

As for human induced climate change, I think we may learn to regulate that, and we certainly will need to learn how to do this if we want to put our skills into practice to terraform another planet. As it stands, the population of the human race is projected to plateau at approximately 10 billion (given the trend of increase in life expectancy, and reduction of births to just 2 children per couple as education becomes available: Hans Rosling: Global population growth, box by box | Video on TED.com ). This is wonderful because then we have a fairly steady population of emissions to account for. Furthermore, we are investing in 'green' technologies which will reduce the 'cost' on the environment per unit of energy used: Hans Rosling: The magic washing machine | Video on TED.com

people are already looking at techniques to control the environment on a more massive scale, such as the halting of desertification on the border of the Sahara: Magnus Larsson: Turning dunes into architecture | Video on TED.com

I think we can create a stable future for humanity and the environment which supports it if we divert the time and resources to do so. This will take two things: Firstly, long term investment into not only green technologies, but education on these subjects, as well as family planning to stabilize the population growth (I imagine a substantial portion of this money is derived from charities). Second, we must create incentive for businesses to make money in the short term in an environmentally sustainable manner. And the lucky thing is that these aren't wild ideas, they are quite realistic and quite possible, but humanity needs to want it and take the actions necessary in accomplishing these goals.


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

This is why I dislike nature/man dichotomoies. Nature uses technology (hello, equilibrium chemistry; not to mention all the other levers and circuitry that go on in nervous systems), and technology uses nature (it's not like that stuff comes out ex nihilo).


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Humanity is indigenous to Earth. Whatever humanity does as a result is natural. Technology and nature do not _coexist_, they are the same thing. 
If a beaver builds a dam or a bear digs a den this is nature.. If mankind builds a dam or builds a home it's not? Psshhhhh


----------



## sofort99 (Mar 27, 2010)

Isn't technology really allowing us to have in increasingly smaller footprint per person over time?

And we are actually on the verge of a big energy breakthrough. Once we get to where we have almost unlimited energy from practically nothing, our footprint will diminish to be almost non-existent.


----------



## TJSeabury (Nov 23, 2010)

eros5th said:


> Or is technology always bound to go against nature and disrupt it in some way?
> 
> I wonder if it would be possible to create technology and thus a civilization that coexists perfectly with nature since it seems like all of our current technology seems to disrupt it in some way.
> 
> Could we ever adapt our technology to work in harmony with nature?


Of course it is! 

The blending of nature and technology would be a great achievement! Just think of it! Using genetic engineering you could stop the need for lumber to build houses, you could make the TREES grow into houses.

Not only that why waste all that photosynthesis on sugar? Why not engineer the tree houses with photo-voltaic leaves! 

How about bio computers? You have one in your head. Mix in inorganic circuits and boom, awesome sauce.

Take a tree species - we have already done this - and engineer it to absorb radiation and toxins from the soil! These trees can be be planted, clean a very large area and be harvested for lumber in about 3-5 years. SCIENCE!

Space travel? Moon colony? Engineer a plant to be super efficient at scrubbing CO2!

Green cities! Why have cities be full of depressing metal and concrete? How about we plant gardens and farms and forests on the roofs and other available spaces? Not only will it look great but it would also be cleaner, smell better, be cooler and reduce the need to import fruit and vegetables from elsewhere!

The possibilities are literally limitless! 

SCIENCE! IDEALISM! BETTER FUTURE! 


DDD


----------



## jonkay1 (Aug 11, 2012)

One day I reckon we'll be plugging our iPhones into USB sockets on trees :'(.... joking... or am I?! 

I think we're past saving the earth, we can never go back - thats the sad thing about discoveries. It seems that however 'smart' we are getting, we are also becoming increasingly stupid. We're completely aware of what we're doing to our planet, but we all carry on like normal, because we have no other options really, how could we ever leave our lives how it currently is? Leave all the cars on the streets and never use them?? 

Either we come up with extremely efficient energy to RUN our technology..... or we're dooooomed.

Even creating efficient energy is costing nature - solar pannels, the irony is the amount of CO2 is produced to create a single solar pannel, the same probably goes for wind turbines - how much C02 it must cost to create them, transport them, build them........

we have a LOT of work to do, we'll realise this when its too late.


----------



## bknight554 (Sep 25, 2012)

General law is that you expend more energy to create energy. question is, where does that energy go, and if it works the way nature does, one day it will have to come back. but i doubt the human race will be here when it does.. or will it?! haha


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

Techonogy often requires the destruction of nature.

So no.


----------



## Donkey D Kong (Feb 14, 2011)

I'd have to say yes. However, we should be dedicating more time to cleaner energy sources and find ways to cut down on deforestation.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

There's plenty of examples of using technology in conjunct with nature. Its the future.
Here's a list:
Eco friendly homes
The invention of email - saves chopping down any more trees
Energy saving lightbulbs
Solar Panels
Electric cars cut down on CO2 emmission.
Wind turbines

Actually there's too many to list, the trick is to replace how that energy is used or what energy it is we are using and make the most of the earth's natural resources, e.g sun, wind etc. So, maybe if we erradicated places like Las Vegas who have used the deserts water supplies for fancy little show in front of fancy hotel, we would be making some saving and possibly new forms of life had resources not been stolen for holiday makers and the like. Yeah, its rediculous because it is. Resources disapportioned.


----------



## sarek (May 20, 2010)

The apparent conflict between nature and technology that you perceive is not real. It is a false dichotomy cause by the fact that our current paradigms are not yet in tune with our level of technology. We as humankind have some serious growing up to do.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Technology is nature. It doesn't destroy nature, nature just like humans is adaptable, history has taught us this over and over again. People are just scared, and projecting their fear onto reality when they claim technology hurts nature. For every piece of evidence that claims technology is hurting the ecosystem I can show a piece of evidence of earth overcoming a disaster before in history due to its capabilities of adaptation. 

Also there are always fluctuations in adaptation and survival. We as humans want to survive, we as a species want to survive and make make the world an efficient place. So technology at times may do some type of damage to a part of the ecosystem, but that part will adapt and overcome. Mature isn't dependent on humans as most of us would love to believe. Take the shark for example, its been around for millions of years and survived many catastrophic events due to it adapting the sense of electroreception. Bird species survived due to magnetoception which helped them also avoid catastrophic events due to them adapting this sense. The planet earth isn't just a rock, its alive, believe it or not, and the reason all of its species can adapt to significant changes on it is because earth itself can adapt to significant changes that its species brings about.

Also if technology is hurting the ecosystem in any type of way then by adaptation, evolution standard we are bound to make technology that is eco-friendly. Which we are already in the process of making. Basically anything we do as a species is part of nature. We are all interconnected to earth, and it took earth to create technology. To imply that their is a difference between technology and nature is to say there is a difference between the planets and the universe. For nature is the direct cause for the existence of technology, the universe is a direct cause for the existence of planets.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

sarek said:


> The apparent conflict between nature and technology that you perceive is not real. It is a false dichotomy cause by the fact that our current paradigms are not yet in tune with our level of technology. We as humankind have some serious growing up to do.


Right, the point is we have no choice.

The question is whether we can take the course of a sustainable future before we reach critical points of environmental damage. Species endangerment continues at an alarming rate, so we still have a long way to go.


----------



## Kormoran (Mar 15, 2012)

It depends a lot on the technology. Some technology is good, but I'm sceptical of technophiles; they often want to introduce technology into everything. I'd rather not replace the good (but perhaps flawed) things in life with technology, just because "we can do it, technically".


----------



## Lesley Drakken (Aug 17, 2012)

Yes. Without going into much detail, I believe so, and a world like this is my dream.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

Hmm, yes based on this picture:


----------

