Guest essay by Linnea C. Lueken
Engraved on the stone over the entrance to the Engineering building at my university are the words:
STRIVE ON – THE CONTROL OF NATURE IS WON, NOT GIVEN.
“That’s a terrible thing to say.” A visiting biologist I was walking with said, shaking her head. I laughed it off, not wanting to think too deeply about what she meant, and definitely not wanting to debate with her.
Of course, being me, I later spent a lot of time thinking about it. Is that quote a terrible thing? “The control of nature is won” is certainly an aggressive statement of intent. I thought at first perhaps from a biologists perspective—but do biologists not strive to understand the way living bodies work so that they might develop ways to cure ailments, or even in some cases improve functions altogether? I know this is something that this particular biologist believed, as the research was in the pursuit of helping to treat or cure osteoporosis. Was all of her research, all of those late nights collecting data, not for striving after winning control of nature? The slow weakening and eventual destruction of bone is a natural process.
It makes no sense to me why a biologist would take issue those words, but it leads to wonder what fields of science do not believe in the control of nature. Not ecologists, as they’re constantly debating ways to alter habitats, conserve them, or keep them in a distinctly unnatural stasis—the end goal of which is to protect and preserve these natural places. Engineers devote their careers to battling the elements and gravity, physicists desire to map them out so we might battle them more easily, and climate scientists insist that we must find a way to change the course of the climate (or weather), else we are destroyed by it (Contrasted to the simultaneous belief that humans are already controlling the climate through CO2 emissions).
If this biologist agreed with the sentiment by the work she does, why was there this knee-jerk negative reaction?
Is “Strive on—the control of nature is won, not given” a controversial statement? What does it mean for science if it is?
I think that most of the people who are on the “denier” train probably have noted a trend in the kind of people and ideology involved with the CAGW crowd. It’s tough to put a name to it, especially since language has been perverted quite a bit in recent years—words don’t carry the same meaning. I think overall though, a common thread from the UN Climate panels to our own alarmists is the influence of Karl Marx and Progressivism. I believe the automatic dismissal of “the control of nature is won” is based on a somewhat nihilistic distrust of humanity as a whole. It’s a collectivist dismissal, along the thinking of those who see Mankind as a sort of locust sweeping across the planet (I’ve yet to see a locust that actively works to preserve parts of the environment, and worries as much as we do about its impact on the planet).
Many of my more literal friends will balk at the ‘Progressivism’ remark, explaining that science is always the pursuit of progress in many areas, so of course it’s progressive. I argue that the modern Progressive movement isn’t the same thing. There is philosophical baggage that comes along with it, all of which one can see reflected in alarmist positions. The core of this philosophy maintains a desolate view of humanity and our intentions, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the philosophical father of the French Revolution, often wrote about. Capitalist society, individualism, and small government breeds exploitation, according to Rousseau. Exploitation is another word you’ll hear frequently from progressives, particularly in the context of natural resource use. Here they do not mean ‘use’, but instead the definition involving corruption, misuse, and abuse.
Frequently, complaints about fossil fuel use coincide with predictable characterizations of oil companies as viciously capitalistic imperialists, ravaging the earth’s surface and subsurface to satisfy their own greed. At the same time, they believe that big green energy companies are motivated not by greed, but by a virtuous and righteous quest to save the planet. Both are massive industries with cash flows that most other businesses would never dare to dream of, and yet Big Green Energy which gets so much money and support from government and private interests alike is not so villainized. Why? Because not all big corporations are the same, and in the mind of a progressive if the government—better yet international government—supports them financially or otherwise, it’s even better. Most governments, most countries, most scientists agree—right? It’s the collective that must be correct, its Rousseau’s ideal direct democracy on a global scale.
About a year ago our friends at Greenpeace and other anti-fracking groups railed against Third Energy, an energy company out of the UK, over fracking in North Yorkshire. Greenpeace’s response to being on the losing side of the legal battle was “fracking companies shouldn’t underestimate the strength of feeling on this issue.” (My first question is what, exactly, are the units for the “strength of feeling”? Tears per cubic foot?) Such a ridiculous statement is not even kind of rare, and it makes it all the more obvious that these aren’t scientific issues—it’s entirely political and those politics are comfortably surrounded by a cushion of modern progressive verbiage. We feel that humans are a problem; we feel that we need to do something about it.
We see the same mindset with the greens who have taken offense to the villain of the recent Avengers: Infinity War movie. It’s been analyzed at length at this point from enough sites that we never need to talk about Thanos’ ‘Population Bomb’ motives ever again… but I’m going to—briefly—anyway.
Here we have this perfect Marxist idea where someone (government, an angry purple alien) swoops in and carefully controls or models the way people live (or die). It’s social planning to the morbid extreme. The image of Thanos peacefully retiring to his bungalow with his wood bead door coverings and bamboo yoga mats after killing half the universe is one that disturbs those who believe in such radical environmentalism, possibly because they’re being forced to look at a rapid and intense comic book example of what their ideas look like. Communism killed possibly more than 100 million people since rising to power, all in the name of “liberating” the majority. Thanos does the same by killing (probably) trillions in a much smaller timeframe, short enough for millions of movie-goers to witness in just a few minutes.
Again and again we see people who attempt to present a skeptical viewpoint, or even just publish unbiased research that conflicts with the accepted climate change narrative get railroaded by their peers. Why? Shouldn’t all scientists be interested in fact, even if it challenges their own research? The answer I’ve found is, “Not if it gets in the way of so-called progress”.
Disclaimer: I’m not a historian, I don’t hold any PhD’s; I’m just a Petroleum Engineer (BS), with a minor in geology. You might have read the last essay I submitted to Anthony Watts where I expressed my concerns about the state of science education particularly at the college level, when it came to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change. I promised an update on my coursework then, and I’m happy to report that I ended up doing very well. I’ve also had the privilege of landing an internship with The Heartland Institute, (shameless plug incoming) writing and working behind the scenes on the upcoming America First Energy conference. Eventually I plan to work in offshore drilling and/or well control, but for now I’m excited and honored to have the opportunity to promote what I believe in. Watts Up With That and other CAGW skepticism-friendly blogs, as well as organizations like Heartland, give me a lot of hope that we can push through the non-science and progressive dogma poisoning good research. If that can be managed, I think we have a good shot at improving lives and restoring the credibility of science as a whole.
To me, “Strive on—the control of nature is won, not given” is a directive of excellence and success, and is a perfectly succinct description of the enterprising spirit of scientists and engineers alike. I can’t overstate how important it is that no scientific community loses that spirit.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pl remove my mail from your list, am seeing your posts every 2-3 hours! Thx!
Sorry, can’t help you. See the unsubscribe in the emails you get. I can’t unsubscribe for you.
“STRIVE ON – THE CONTROL OF NATURE IS WON, NOT GIVEN.”
“The best advice regarding scientific knowledge, which certainly applies to climate, came to me from Mr Mallory, my high school physics teacher.
He proposed that we should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement: “At our present level of ignorance, we think we know…””
John R Christy
I ask believers this.
What are the photon absorption bands of CO2?
What are the photon absorption bands of water vapor?
What is the overlap?
What does it mean?
They usually have no answer. And never a good one.
Simple Simon ……..Do THEY ask YOU “what is a photon ? ”
WHAT do you reply ?
What DOES THAT mean ?
Stay with the topic please !
Regards , Trevor.
Sorry, but we control nothing in nature, we are part of nature, and we borrow from it.
Egotism suggests we control nature, but as we sceptics must be the first to concede, we know little of nature.
We can’t control a hurricane, a volcano nor a meteor strike. Nor an earthquake, a drought or even a rainy day.
Our ego’s tell us we can control Malaria, but we can’t really, because the moment we believe it’s controlled, will be the moment it bites us on the arse.
We imagine we have harnessed electricity, yet a single lighting strike can render a city powerless. A single tidal wave can knock out a nuclear power station, the pinnacle of man’s efforts to generate a fraction of the energy available in a single storm.
We exist thanks to nature, not because we control it. We are faced with an uncertain future, bristling with unknown challenges and adventures, yet our alarmist colleagues tell us they know exactly what will happen in the future.
Sorry, but bollox!
That statement on that building was concocted by an egotist, a fantastist, a control freak, and in my layman’s opinion, ought to be torn down.
The Biologist was right to shake her head, and were the author of this piece half the scientist she thinks she is, she should have challenged her colleague on the subject, because she clearly had an opinion on the matter.
Instead, she walked away and concocted this fantasy. What use is she in the Heartland institute if she doesn’t challenge her peers?
What a sad indictment of science. I’m appalled it’s published on WUWT because that’s the dogma we despise.
Science tries to understand nature. Such understanding can lead to improved control over nature, through the applied sciences, engineering, medicine, etc.
Humans have succeeded in controlling aspects of nature to our benefit, but nature always fights back. We are indeed still part of nature, but with greater power to control bits of it than most species.
We have eradicated small pox. We wiped out a variety of species, some of which were our enemies, but some of which we should not have killed off.
We can affect local weather and even climate, as in the Nile Valley, where increased humidity from our irrigation is unfortunately destroying ancient artwork which survived in the historically dry climate. Ditto air pollution in old cities.
We have transformed the face of whole continents. We will probably never truly control nature, but we have had a big effect in many areas.
Powered flight is the result of Man controlling Nature, overcoming the law that humans cannot fly. If we had wings, it would be ‘given’. It was instead earned.
obviously, if there had been a law against humans flying, it didn’t work.
nature doesn’t obey- ever.
laws are only for those who lack a comprehension of principles.
If we don’t win control of Nature, she will kill us dead.
That is the way of things.
YEP !
As a generalization, Engineers are more concerned with the practical matters in life of making things work and producing things that people need. So too are many scientists, but many scientists are not. I suspect the authors biologist friend was one of the latter.
This, I think, is one of the major dividing lines in todays Western world, not opinions about whether we are controlling ‘nature’ or not. A significant, and increasing, fraction of the population is now wholly removed from what actually supports our way of life and what got us to where we are. This is true of both their education and their employment.
Douglas Adams was well aware of this when he wrote The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy: When the irate philosophers threatened to go on strike unless the omniscient computer Deep Thought was shut down, it enquired of them “Who would that inconvenience”.
Quite often we can find this in Kipling:
The Sons of Martha
THE Sons of Mary seldom bother, for they have inherited that good part;
But the Sons of Martha favour their Mother of the careful soul and the troubled heart.
And because she lost her temper once, and because she was rude to the Lord her Guest,
Her Sons must wait upon Mary’s Sons, world without end, reprieve, or rest.
It is their care in all the ages to take the buffet and cushion the shock.
It is their care that the gear engages; it is their care that the switches lock.
It is their care that the wheels run truly; it is their care to embark and entrain,
Tally, transport, and deliver duly the Sons of Mary by land and main.
They say to mountains, ” Be ye removèd” They say to the lesser floods ” Be dry.”
Under their rods are the rocks reprovèd – they are not afraid of that which is high.
Then do the hill tops shake to the summit – then is the bed of the deep laid bare,
That the Sons of Mary may overcome it, pleasantly sleeping and unaware.
They finger death at their gloves’ end where they piece and repiece the living wires.
He rears against the gates they tend: they feed him hungry behind their fires.
Early at dawn, ere men see clear, they stumble into his terrible stall,
And hale him forth like a haltered steer, and goad and turn him till evenfall.
To these from birth is Belief forbidden; from these till death is Relief afar.
They are concerned with matters hidden – under the earthline their altars are
The secret fountains to follow up, waters withdrawn to restore to the mouth,
And gather the floods as in a cup, and pour them again at a city’s drouth.
They do not preach that their God will rouse them a little before the nuts work loose.
They do not teach that His Pity allows them to leave their job when they damn-well choose.
As in the thronged and the lighted ways, so in the dark and the desert they stand,
Wary and watchful all their days that their brethren’s days may be long in the land.
Raise ye the stone or cleave the wood to make a path more fair or flat;
Lo, it is black already with blood some Son of Martha spilled for that !
Not as a ladder from earth to Heaven, not as a witness to any creed,
But simple service simply given to his own kind in their common need.
And the Sons of Mary smile and are blessèd – they know the angels are on their side.
They know in them is the Grace confessèd, and for them are the Mercies multiplied.
They sit at the Feet – they hear the Word – they see how truly the Promise runs.
They have cast their burden upon the Lord, and – the Lord He lays it on Martha’s Sons !
What jumps out at me is “won,” as if it’s a victory in a battle. It could have said “earned, not given.” In many cases we have not understood nature’s functions well enough to use then wisely. For instance, farms, lawns, clear-cuts, etc. right to a stream edge can have negative consequences downstream (flooding, sedimentation, fertilizer runof), and now that we are finally realizing what a natural buffer can do to preserve stream quality, we are REGULATING to preserve such buffers.
We must control aspects of nature, but “cooperating” with nature can be to our long-term benefit. “Winning” the battle or game or competition shouldn’t be the goal; it’s often more efficient to make use of nature than replace it with engineering.
Yes, that slogan is absolutely a “directive of excellence and success”. That directive was first given in Genesis 1, v. 28 : “And God blessed [the humans] and said to them, ” ……….. fill the Earth and subdue it; ……….” .
Thanos – Spoiler alert. Sheesh!
I believe the phrase “control of nature” is problematic but I agree in the virtue of scientific and engineering discovery and application. When successful our efforts don’t control nature, but rather work with the rules that nature provides to make a better world and healthier, and more comfortable life for people. “Control of nature” sounds to me like a belief that humans can override the natural physical laws of our universe. This is similar to many science fiction themes such as antigravity, time travel and warp drives. We can use the rules of nature to our benefit as much as we like, but we cannot change them or rule over them. I suppose it is all in how we interpret that phrase “control of nature”.
Damming up a river to redirect/create a lake/irrigate/run generators would seem to be fairly controlling, to say the least.
I have never confused the “Progressive”, (capital “P”) as in the Progressive Political movement with actual progress.
Go Pokes!
Thanks for the post and comments. Lots to think about here. It takes arrogance to try to conquer nature, and humility to admit to limitations on what has been achieved. Nuclear power: amazing control, with new power, over something that was previously weak and out of control? Or the unleashing of something that is always inherently “out of control”? More generally: the spectacular success of modern science from about 1600 to 1900 (medicine going a bit beyond that), raised questions: are there more worlds to conquer, along the same lines? Making life even more comfortable for people, with “techniques” of “bringing back” wilderness, longer lives, etc.? Or do we keep discovering that there are important questions that are not answered by modern science, with all its success? Like: why live a long life? Are there better and worse ways of life? Ah yes, the humanities. Rousseau is indeed one of the culprits. I don’t think Progressivism is the answer, but it responds to some of the right questions.
Good essay! It causes me to harken back to the cerebral climate at my university during the 1950s, which, IMO, would be best described by the school’s motto: “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” I am sure the motto is still carved on the side of a building somewhere on campus. Originally, it was imprinted on the university seal. I say “was” because at some time in the past, the motto disappeared from the university seal. I do not know when or why the motto was removed.
I have tried to make that motto a guiding principle for my behavior throughout my lifetime. The motto filled a small part of the hole left in my psyche by the lack of a formal religious education. I am extremely disappointed that the leadership chose to remove the motto (See Caltech seals, past and present, below).
Who are the geniuses that decide unilaterally to change decades of tradition at an institution on a whim? History cannot be rewritten. Removing offending symbols of past injustices does not change history. I associate these actions with individuals who are unable to solve real world problems and choose to look to the past to make a difference rather to seek the truth to benefit mankind in the future.
I wish someone would explain to me how exactly are we harmed by letting an already endangered species go ahead and die out. Seems to me that if there were any further harm to come that it would be de minimis.
Interesting idea. I like the non-orthodox approach. When mere mortals mess with the solar system and natural selection, outcomes will not be good.
Linnea, the reason, I think, that “radical environmentalists”, Progressives, etc were disturbed by Thanos in the Avengers movie, is because he was portrayed as the Enemy of Humanity, whom the Avengers need to defeat, instead of the hero, who wipes out half the population of the universe, ridding the natural World of the scourge of Humanity and Intelligent life.