It just so happened that a few days back, while I was talking about the branding behind this newsletter, a question was raised about whether we could actually Rewire Nature?
I realised that this was a discussion which I probably should have opened the substack with. Would have made for a great first article as well. The thing is that this question, or this debate, is what this newsletter is all about. This truly does feel like the ‘great question’ of our interconnected time.
So let me try to verbalise this argument through the two opponents - the Naturalist and the Technocrat. I think at some level, we’re all familiar with these people. They might reflect in certain ways in the people around us. And I’ll try to give a perspective from each side, even though they’re both in my head.
The Naturalist
When you talk about nature and saving it, there needs to be an understanding of it. Man has tried to fix things that he doesn’t understand and failed miserably. And if you find someone who says that they know everything about nature, that person is delusional. We still haven’t explored the depths of our oceans, and we’re finding new species of animals every day. So how can one of those animals, think about fixing nature by changing it? Can you solve a problem when you don’t even understand it?
Sure, technology has given us a lot. Just the fact that we are able to connect with people across the globe, would not be possible without technology. But we must work towards minimising our impact on the planet, not increasing it. If we think about solving our environmental problems only by ‘rewiring nature’, we are bound to fail as we do not understand the fundamentals of it yet. The only thing we can do is to find a more holistic way of living, that incorporates nature into our life, not walling it off.
The Technocrat
‘Let’s all hold hands and sing kumbaya and wait for the magic to solve all our problems.’
This is a generic response to any Naturalist who preaches an organic living, but it glosses over their legitimate concerns. An organic living is fine, but to what extent? Would you give up your phones? Your emails, your laptops? Your overhead showers? Even your flush is based on technology. The truth of the matter is that humans have had a cataclysmic impact on nature. So we are the ones who must fix it. We must find solutions to reverse our impact, not just reduce it. And that can only be done through technology.
Take shower heads for example. You can create technology to maintain pressure in the flow, which automatically reduces the amount of water you use. You can create tall structures that can literally suck out the carbon from the air. You can create boats that pickup plastic floating in the sea. You also need to find a way to replace that same plastic with bio-degradable containers. This all comes from technology. We might want to go back to a simpler time of living more naturally, but technology is in every aspect of our lives and is here to stay. So, we have to take the appropriate steps to find technology that works in our favour.
Where do we stand currently?
There are valid points on both sides of the aisle. There are those who vehemently believe in living a more holistic and organic life. And there are some who believe that salvation lies in solving the problems that technology causes, with more technology. And both sides are extremely vocal in getting their point across.
At the moment it almost feels like battle lines have been drawn between these two sides. There are a few who float back and forth, but the majority feel that their side is the ‘right one’. Bill Gates does not want to think about individual animals, he prefers looking at species as a whole. But some conservationists even have individual names for the animals that they’re trying to save. So which one works?
Why not both?
Camera traps have been implemented to gauge animal behaviour, to find poachers, and to help solve the problems that affect said animal. We can use satellite imagery to catch illegal loggers in the rainforests. This is done through technology with the aim of helping these animals maintain their way of life.
What if we used image sensors to help farmers understand when to remove their organic produce from the ground? This would increase profitability and make them competitive with the larger, pesticide-ridden farms. We could create technology that would isolate patches of plant beds if a certain insect was found. So this would be technology helping you live ‘naturally’.
A great example of this cohesion would be of land bridges. Deforestation and human encroachment have broken up historic tracts of land used by migratory animals such as elephants, which leads to an increase in human-animal conflict. This is where land bridges come into play, which are tracts of land that go over human encroachments thus allowing animals a clean passage through. The original aim would be to not ever need these, but the damage is already done. This is where technology is trying to rectify our mistakes.
Even the concept of Wildlife Reserves is a combination of both. We isolate a part of land away from humans and our detrimental impact, so as to help nature thrive in its natural capacity. We maintain this by walling it off and using technology to prevent unauthorised entry. It’s a slightly twisted way to save our planet, but it is one of the methods that seems to be working.
But where do we draw the line?
Even if people do agree that technology is the future, the question that begs to be asked is where is the line for technology and nature? Genetically modified mosquitoes have been released into the wild, to curb the population of disease carrying mosquitoes. Eventually the aim is for the entire population of mosquitoes to dwindle down. If you’ve ever been bitten by a mosquito, it sounds fantastic to get rid of them. But the impact it might have up the food chain is unknowable. There might be models and studies that show how it would play out, but we truly do not understand nature enough to modify it to this extent.
And it kind of comes back to the original debate of how much should man rewire nature. I guess my take is that humans should rewire only what they truly understand and are probably the cause of. Building electric cars is solving a man-made problem. Removing plastic from the oceans is another such example. Tracking deforestation to protect our carbon sinks is another. Plant-based meat is potentially another.
There do exist tricky ones though, which need to be looked at more carefully. A Hydro-electric dam can cause massive changes to the eco-system of that region, but is a bountiful source of renewable energy. So where do we land there? I would argue for creating smaller dams, which minimises the impact and only benefits the regional population. This creates a local impact which is borne by the locals. So if the health of the river is deemed critical, we can implement technology to successfully remove the dam and let the river run free.
It’s too simplistic a statement to make that we should go back to the way things were. We just can’t. We’re moving at a breakneck speed forward, and the kind of technology that is about to hit us can change human science as well. We’re literally aiming for the stars, so a world devoid of technology just doesn’t exist. So, we must use it to our benefits, but only when we have a complete grasp of the problem. If we do not comprehend the impact of our steps, we are in no position to attempt a solution. Let nature run its course and we’ll figure something along the way. That’s the only way we don’t unleash a catastrophe beyond our control. We have enough movies about Geo-engineering going wrong, we don’t need it to become a reality.
Can We Rewire Nature?
Such a thoughtful exploration, thank you. We don't even fully understand the human mind yet, no less other species on our planet... I hope our scientists are moving forward with this kind of care.