A concept called Nature

It is very unfortunate that human societies have more or less ganged up against Nature. Our Sciences, our Religions, and our Modern economic systems have deliberately chosen to misrepresent Nature to gain their own private ends, in the end sacrificing the welfare of human beings.

Science and Nature where do they stand with respect to one another?

SCIENCE (Universal Set)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * N N N N * * * *
* * * * * * * * N N N N * * * * NATURE
* * * * * * * * N N N N * * * * ( Sub Set: As
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * applicable
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * to planet
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Earth)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

What we learn in science can be considered as being part of an UNIVERSAL SET, whereas, what we learn under NATURE (Nature here is meant to represent only the environment we have on planet Earth), can be considered to be a subset. Though normally the Universal set will represent greater complexity, here we have the interesting situation where the Subset is actually more complex, because it represents not just inanimate science, but science resulting in combinations so complex that the system literally and figuratively has a life of its own. Nature, here, is not amenable to normal scientific interpretations.

To understand this mystery let us consider another set and subset. Let the Universal set be all possible computer programmes, (specifically the principles which make all computer programmes possible) and let the subset be The Windows Operating System. Knowing the principles, we are in a position to write computer programmes of all kinds. But this does not give us the capability to actually meddle with the Windows Operating System. We have no option but to respect the individuals who created the Windows Operating System, and learn to use the system within the format in which it was designed.

Capitalizing on the knowledge of the four physical interactions, gravity, electromagnetism, weak interaction and strong interaction (which scientists are labouring to coalesce into one grand unified theory), it should be theoretically possible to anticipate a child's gurgling and cooing sound - in practice it will be practically impossible to do so. Investigations into science are welcome, but when science is applied to the welfare of human beings, it is important to ask the question, does this new invention in anyway contravene natural laws (in harmony with nature). It is not sufficient to just ask "is it based on science"?

The contempt in which Nature is held by both Sciences and Religions can be partly gauged by the present debate on Intelligent Design. More or less both the factions agree by now, I think, that it is practically impossible to create even a butterfly by shooting in the dark - depending on random mutations and natural selection alone. Yet it will be a long time before these two groups - who are presently spending their time splitting hairs - acknowledge the inescapable truth that NATURE HERSELF IS INTELLIGENT and can herself direct evolution. When a stone falls, we have to brush up on Newton's laws and pull out a computer to accurately predict its trajectory. Nature does not have to do this - the stone will just fall! The scientists are not going to agree that Nature is intelligent because if they do, they will have to acknowledge that there is an entity smarter than them. How can they agree to such apostasy? That these intelligent people are themselves created by nature is of course irrelevant!

The Religious factions are not going to agree that NATURE IS INTELLIGENT, because intelligence is reserved for God and cannot be rationed out to Nature. The idea that God went out of his way to make humans in his own image is required to bolster the fiction of god-like supremacy of humans, so that they can go around doing every unreasonable thing in the book. Such as, looking on with equanimity as a large number of life forms are permanently extinguished by the irresponsible increase in human population - something no religious group has protested against so far. (For the Indian religions it may not be a big deal to accept God and Nature as being congruent, but for the Judaic religions it will be a bitter pill to swallow. It grieves me to make a direct attack on religions; but religions carry enormous power and prestige and have large followings; many of the problems we face today would not have been there had our religions been more proactive. ).

As we stand back and take an inventory, of what we call scientific progress, where do we stand at the moment?

Viewed Independently the sciences have much to cheer about. We could easily assign a score of 9 out of 10 to the physical sciences - the type of science that gets us to the Moon. Medical sciences, the mind boggling advances they have made could also be assigned an 8. Agricultural sciences, may be a 7. The aggregate of these three would get us a winning score of 8.

But wait a minute. When we see that humans are sick as never before, most of them would perform badly in any physical competition, and when we factor in the great damage done to the environment by the current agricultural sciences a different picture emerges. The scoring now changes to physical sciences 9, Medical sciences a poor 4 and so also the Agricultural sciences, 4. It is not worth taking an aggregate of this.

Wait another minute, we use our knowledge of the physical sciences to alter our environment without knowing what environment is suited for humans. In this context we must change the scores once again, Physical sciences 4, Medical sciences 4, Agricultural sciences 4. I have been generous in this scoring. This scoring does not take into account the nonlinearity that exists in most physical systems; if you were to go for a walk in the desert without carrying water, you would end up dead. Period.

The cushy life we enjoy on this planet is made possible, more by the bounty of Nature, than by any extraordinary application of intelligence on our part. In this deliberate attempt to denigrate nature, we ourselves are the final losers, as we risk losing the compass which could direct our actions; and also actions of those who will come 500 years hence (who will sorely need something sane to pattern their lives around). When all is said and done, there is no great difference between us and monkeys in the jungle. We are constrained by natural laws, however much we may think otherwise. In many areas of human welfare our sciences are going to get stuck in the mud unless we view ourselves as being part of this larger system we call Nature - and attempt to understand her mysteries, treating her with profound respect at all times.

Selvaraj