I have never fully understood why some things are described as being “natural” and others described as being “man-made”, with the implication that they are therefore “not natural”. When one looks at the landscape in the Northern Territory and sees the massive termite mounds, some of which stand a couple of meters or more tall and are oriented so as to form great internal environmental stability, we do not describe them as un-natural because they are “termite-made”, rather they are accepted as a remarkable feat of natural engineering. Similarly, bird nests, whether comprising a few twigs piled up, or an intricately woven nest of hair, twigs feathers etc, are not described as un-natural because they are “bird-made”. And wombat holes are quite properly considered “natural”, even if something of a nuisance. Termites, birds and wombats build their structures because it is a part of their nature to do just that. But when we see a house of brick or timber, it is described as “man-made”, and not part of the “natural” environment. Now, whether one believes in “creation”, “intelligent design”, “Darwinian evolution” or any other mechanism by which Homo sapiens reached the stage that he is at now, there can be no doubt that H sapiens is simply one of the myriad animal species that make up the natural fauna of Planet Earth. And as such, anything that H sapiens does is part of the collective nature of the species, and the products of H sapiens’ activities, like those of the termites, birds and wombats, must therefore be considered to be “natural”.
It is part of H sapiens’ nature to invent and to use a very large range of objects in order to make life more comfortable. These need to be manufactured in great quantities to satisfy the demands of the population, with the resultant depletion of raw materials and fossil fuels, and the consequential burdening of the atmosphere with the products of combustion. So we hear of the “man-made” pollution and increased carbon dioxide levels, as though it were somehow “not natural”. I contend that, unwelcome as it may be, this is as natural as wombat holes, termite mounds and bird nests, and just as it will be impossible to stop those species modifying their environment, so it will be impossible to stop H sapiens modifying his. This is especially the case where we have an advertising industry hell-bent on persuading us to buy more stuff that we do not really need, and governments obsessed with growth in the economy requiring us to buy more stuff in order to keep the economy growing, so that people can have jobs making things for others to buy, even though they do not need them.
So, whilst increasing carbon dioxide levels are indeed man-made, they are just as certainly “natural”, and an entirely different approach to meeting, or to modifying, our energy needs will be required if anything is to be done about it. Quite what that approach needs to be is beyond the scope of this particular ramble, but unfortunately, it would require that any such approach would need to be global if it were to work at all, which I doubt will ever happen. In the meantime, we have a carbon tax which will not make one iota of difference to Australian H sapiens’ use of fossil fuels, or lead to any reduction in carbon emissions from Australia. And even if Australia reduced its emissions to zero today, it would not make the slightest scrap of difference to the global output. But our politicians say that we must lead the world by setting an example with the carbon tax, (as if anyone takes any notice of us!) so maybe we should try developing a totally radical approach, and then lead the world with it.
If anyone has any ideas for a total rethink of our approaches to energy needs or use, please speak up!
Slingsby's Miscellany 