Another puzzle for you to pontificate on: is it really true that ‘Nature’ is suffering?
For decades now, you will be hard-pressed to read a whole newspaper or magazine without someone complaining about how badly ‘Nature’ is doing. The melting glaciers, the disappearing Siberian tiger, the extinct Tasmanian one, the demise of any fish large enough to be eaten, the diminishing rain forest, the advent of mono-cultures, acidification of the ocean, etc. To most people it must be a no-brainer that in this age of global warming and increased consumption of an increasing human population, ‘Nature’ must be on the ropes.
But is this really true? Surely we cannot just think of ‘Nature’ as whatever existed in 1800 and hence by definition say every change is bad! Nature is surely a dynamic thing capable of actually getting better over time, not just worse. The key to whether ‘Nature’ is thus doing well or doing badly is some notion as to what it is you mean by Nature.
So what do you have to assume about what ‘Nature’ is to really say it is in a bad shape? Can you think of reasonable definitions of ‘Nature’ such that it is, in fact, in great shape?
Once again, I invite all to speak their minds about this factoid on the comment thread and will give you my best guess on Monday.