On the Word "Natural”
February 7
When considering the word “natural,” we face a tendency to imagine such areas as existing in a pristine, undisturbed stasis – say a forest, mountain, or meadow, for example. Such a definition is highly problematic, as all areas, “natural” and otherwise, are constantly changing.
We would do well to begin thinking of “natural” in terms of an interconnected system of processes that are constantly altering, shaping, and reshaping ecosystems. Thus, when describing an area as “natural,” we would then be referring to its ability to absorb and integrate the changes that occur.
For instance, we do not consider cities and other developed areas “natural” due to the fact that ecological forces rarely push back with the veracity needed to topple a network of roads, buildings, and homes – though this often occurs in localized areas or to lesser degrees. As such, an area’s “natural-ness” depends on the continuation of processes rather than the physical composition of the area under discussion at a specific point in time. For the most part, these processes are self-sustaining. An ecosystem responds “naturally” to a stimulus by moderating and integrating it, occasionally transforming the processes at work themselves. This is the area in which humans have had the greatest, and perhaps most alarming impacts.
Throughout history, and especially following the Industrial Revolution, humans have increased dramatically in population, affluence, and technological capability – often without considering the larger implications of this growth. As such, we are altering not just our local environments, but the interconnected global processes that sustain life on the planet itself. Exponential growth curves indicate that within the next thirty years and almost certainly within the next century, humans will surpass the carrying capacity of the planet if we fail to dramatically alter our patterns of consumption, resource use, and reproduction.
Of course, this is assuming that we have not yet passed this point.
The time to be concerned is past. We must now begin to act. Or perhaps stop acting.


February 7th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
I have a New Scientist article called “Earth without humans”, which discusses the profound impact we have had on our planet and what would happen if we all disappeared tomorrow. It prompts the reader to imagine that all the people on Earth - all 6.5 billion of us and couting - could be spirited away tomorrow. Left once more to its own devices, the thought experiment ponders the extent to which nature would begin to reclaim the planet, as fields and pastures reverted to prairies and forest, the air and water cleansed themselves of pollutants, and roads and cities crumbled back to dust. it is an interesting read and makes me wonder what sort of impact the Church could have if al Christians spontaneously acted responsibly from tomorrow…