Why harmony with nature is a myth
为什么与自然和谐是一个神话

The following is the conclusion of Chapter 2 from the book The Techno-Humanist Manifesto by Jason Crawford, Founder of the Roots of Progress Institute. The first section of this chapter told the story of progress as one of increasing human agency. The entirety of the book will be published on Freethink, one week at a time. For more from Jason, subscribe to his Substack.
以下是《技术人道主义宣言》一书第 2 章的结论，作者是 Roots of Progress Institute 的创始人 Jason Crawford。本章的第一部分讲述了进步的故事，即人类代理权的增加。整本书将每周在 Freethink 上发布。要了解更多关于 Jason 的信息，请订阅他的 Substack。

Chapter 2, Section 2: Surrender of the Gods
第 2 章，第 2 节：神的投降

The story of progress, then, is one of humanity gradually wresting our fate away from the gods and taking it into our own hands. It is a process of increasing mastery over nature.
进步的故事，是人类逐渐从神灵手中夺取命运，将其掌握在自己手中的故事。这是一个逐渐掌握自然的过程。

The concept of “mastery” over nature makes many people cringe. The acceptable notion today is to live in “harmony” with nature. Conservationist Aldo Leopold called in 1949 for “harmony between men and land”;¹ by now the phrase has become an environmentalist cliché.² The United Nations extolled this “harmony” in their foundational 1982 World Charter for Nature, in at least nine Resolutions on Harmony with Nature, and in their Sustainable Development Goals.³
“掌控”自然的概念让许多人感到不安。如今可接受的观念是与自然“和谐”共处。保育主义者奥尔多·利奥波德在 1949 年呼吁实现“人与土地之间的和谐”；到现在这个短语已经成为环保主义者的陈词滥调。联合国在其 1982 年的《世界自然宪章》中赞扬了这种“和谐”，至少在九项与自然和谐相关的决议和可持续发展目标中也提到了这一点。

This vision of harmony rests on a romantic view of nature as a loving mother who provides for us and protects us. In statements for “International Mother Earth Day,” the UN has called Mother Earth “the source of all life and nourishment,” praised her as “[t]he one thing that remains to sustain the many waves of humanity,” and admonished humanity as her “delinquent child,” challenging us to repair relations with her.⁴ Greenpeace paints the same picture: one of their articles states that “we need nature to do what it does best: sustaining life it gives homes to”; another claims that nature “gives us what we need,” “protects us,” and even “could solve future problems.”⁵
这种和谐的愿景建立在一种浪漫的自然观之上，认为自然是一个慈爱的母亲，为我们提供食物和保护。联合国在“国际地球母亲日”声明中称地球母亲为“所有生命和滋养的源泉”，赞扬她是“唯一留下来维系人类众多浪潮的东西”，并责备人类是她的“失职孩子”，挑战我们修复与她的关系。⁴ 绿色和平组织也描绘了同样的画面：其中一篇文章称“我们需要自然做它最擅长的事情：维系生命，给予家园”；另一篇声称自然“给予我们所需”，“保护我们”，甚至“可能解决未来问题”。⁵

The ideal of “harmony” with nature is often pitched in superficially humanistic terms, on the premise that “humanity’s well-being [is] derived from the well-being of the Earth.”⁶ But in practice it becomes a call to decrease human agency: to do less, limit impact, cede control. Reduce, relinquish, retreat. The UN calls for “decreased intake of new material resources” and “reduced environmental footprint.”⁷ “Degrowth” advocate Jason Hickel says that the objective “is to scale down the material throughput of the economy.”⁸ Indeed, a formula commonly used in environmental science is “IPAT”: impact = people × affluence × technology.⁹ Reducing impact, by this definition, means a smaller population using less technology to be poorer.
理想的“与自然和谐”的概念常常以肤浅的人文主义术语表达，基于“人类的幸福源自地球的幸福”的前提。⁶ 但在实践中，这变成了减少人类行为的呼吁：做得更少，限制影响，放弃控制。减少、放弃、撤退。联合国呼吁“减少新材料资源的消耗”和“减少环境足迹”。⁷ “减长增长”倡导者杰森·希克尔表示，目标是“缩减经济的物质吞吐量”。⁸ 实际上，环境科学中常用的一个公式是“IPAT”：影响 = 人口 × 富裕程度 × 技术。⁹ 根据这个定义，减少影响意味着人口更少，使用更少技术的人更贫穷。

But slowing growth and limiting development isn’t living in harmony with nature—it is surrendering in a battle with nature, capitulating to her unreasonable demands. To truly live in harmony with nature, we must first dispel this romanticized vision of it. To love and respect nature, we must see it clearly for exactly what it is.
但是减缓增长和限制发展并不是与自然和谐共处，而是在与自然的战斗中投降，屈服于她不合理的要求。要真正与自然和谐共处，我们必须首先消除对它的浪漫化幻想。要爱护和尊重自然，我们必须清楚地看到它的真实面目。

Nature is not a loving mother. It is supremely indifferent to human needs. It gives us sunshine, but also heat waves and drought; rain, but also flood; lush prairies, but also deserts and swamps. “Immune, inanimate, inhuman, it indifferently manifests itself in the thunderbolt and hailstorm, rabid bat, smallpox microbe, and ice crystal.”¹⁰
大自然并非慈爱的母亲。它对人类的需求极其冷漠。它给予我们阳光，但也有热浪和干旱；雨水，但也有洪水；郁郁葱葱的草原，但也有沙漠和沼泽。“免疫、无生命、非人类，它在雷电和冰雹、狂犬、天花病菌和冰晶中冷漠地显现。”¹⁰

Untamed nature is fearsome, and was seen this way through most of history. The romantic view of nature is a modern luxury bred of technology and urbanization. Environmental writer Emma Marris says:
未被驯化的自然是可怕的，在大部分历史上都是这样看待的。对自然的浪漫观是科技和城市化所孕育的现代奢侈品。环境作家艾玛·玛丽斯说：

在西方历史上，荒野一直被视为无穷资源和真正危险的源泉……许多欧洲殖民者更喜欢城镇和田野，那里的事情更加安全，他们认为当文明占领的土地扩大，野蛮的自然缩小时，这是进步。直到社会获得了一点安全、繁荣和闲暇，自然的最狂野的一面才开始显得相当浪漫。¹¹

Comfortable in our climate-controlled homes and on our manicured lawns, we can easily forget nature’s perils, but those who were truly in touch with the land, just a few generations ago, could not. The poet Robert Service described them in “The Law of the Yukon,” which he wrote in the voice of Nature herself, as she speaks of the men who came to challenge her:
在我们有气候控制的家园和修剪整齐的草坪里感到舒适，我们很容易忘记大自然的危险，但真正与土地接触的人，仅仅几代人之前，却不会。诗人罗伯特·赛维斯特在《育空法则》中描述了他们，他以大自然的声音写道，她谈到那些来挑战她的人们：

One by one I dismayed them, frighting them sore with my glooms;
我一个接一个地使他们沮丧，用我的忧郁使他们非常害怕；
One by one I betrayed them unto my manifold dooms.
一个接一个地，我背叛了他们，导致了我的多重厄运。
Drowned them like rats in my rivers, starved them like curs on my plains,
淹死他们像老鼠在我的河流中，饿死他们像狗在我的平原上，
Rotted the flesh that was left them, poisoned the blood in their veins;
腐烂了他们剩下的肉体，毒害了他们血液中的血液；
Burst with my winter upon them, searing forever their sight,
在他们身上爆发我的冬天，永远灼烧他们的视线，
Lashed them with fungus-white faces, whimpering wild in the night;
在夜晚里，用真菌白色的脸抽打他们；他们在夜晚里哭泣着
Staggering blind through the storm-whirl, stumbling mad through the snow,
在风暴中摇摇晃晃地盲目前行，在雪地中疯狂地跌跌撞撞
Frozen stiff in the ice-pack, brittle and bent like a bow;
冻僵在冰块中，脆弱而弯曲如弓；
Featureless, formless, forsaken, scented by wolves in their flight,
毫无特色，无形，被狼的气味所遗弃，在它们的飞行中
Left for the wind to make music through ribs that are glittering white…
留给风穿过闪闪发光的白色肋骨演奏音乐..¹²

Further, nature is not harmonious. “Harmony” means “agreement or concord.”¹³ But nature is full of strife and conflict. Every organism on the planet competes for resources. Different species literally eat each other alive and invade each other’s bodies to exploit them. Members of the same species vie for dominance and mates, even with their own kin. An adult male tiger, if it comes across cubs that are not its own, will kill them, and then mate with the mother.¹⁴ A black eagle, when it hatches, will peck its weaker sibling to death.¹⁵ Tennyson, reflecting on the mercilessness of nature, aptly described her as “red in tooth and claw.”¹⁶
进一步说，自然并不和谐。“和谐”意味着“一致或和谐。”¹³ 但自然充满了冲突和争斗。地球上的每个生物都在争夺资源。不同的物种彼此互相捕食并入侵对方的身体以剥削它们。同一物种的成员争夺统治地位和伴侣，甚至与自己的亲属争斗。一只成年雄虎，如果遇到不是自己的幼崽，会杀死它们，然后与母亲交配。¹⁴ 一只黑鹰孵化时会啄死较弱的兄弟。¹⁵坦尼森在反思自然的无情时，恰如其分地将她描述为“牙齿和爪子都是红色的。”¹⁶

This conflict is inherent in non-rational nature. The selective pressure of evolution creates organisms that ruthlessly compete with and mercilessly dominate anything that gets in the way of their survival and reproduction. Nature may, for a time, be in “balance”—as births are balanced with grisly deaths, and predators with prey—but it is never in “harmony.”¹⁷
这种冲突是非理性本性中固有的。进化的选择性压力创造了无情地竞争和无情地支配一切阻碍其生存和繁殖的生物。自然可能在一段时间内保持“平衡”——出生与可怕的死亡平衡，捕食者与猎物平衡——但它永远不会处于“和谐”。

It is only human rationality that has enabled us, slowly, to transcend eternal warfare and reach some semblance of peace and cooperation. It is only human rationality that has any hope of creating harmony.
只有人类的理性才使我们能够慢慢超越永恒的战争，达到某种和平与合作的样貌。只有人类的理性才有希望创造和谐。

But that harmony requires the ability to commit to agreements and abide by norms. It is not possible to reach agreement with blind, non-rational nature. The only way to truly live in harmony with nature—to find agreement or concord with it—is unilaterally: to arrange its parts and direct its forces so as to best support human life. Nature absolutely enforces its immutable laws, which we ignore at our peril, but there is no reason to resign ourselves to the chance configuration of matter and energy it gives us. Using the former, we can control the latter.
但是，这种和谐需要有能力承诺协议并遵守规范。与盲目、非理性的自然达成协议是不可能的。真正与自然和谐相处的唯一方式是单方面的：安排其部分并引导其力量，以最好地支持人类生活。自然绝对执行其不变的法则，我们若忽视则会自食其果，但没有理由接受物质和能量的偶然配置。利用前者，我们可以控制后者。

Bacon said that to command nature, we must obey it.¹⁸ In the same spirit, we can say that to live in harmony with nature, we must master it.
培根说，要指挥自然，我们必须服从它。¹⁸在同样的精神中，我们可以说，要与自然和谐共处，我们必须掌握它。

To master nature is not to abuse or waste it; this isn’t a call to trash the planet or to pave it over for a parking lot. Nature is immensely valuable. It deserves our love and respect; we should care for and protect it. But we can conceive the value of nature entirely in human terms.
掌控自然并不意味着滥用或浪费它；这并不是呼吁破坏地球或者为了建停车场而铺平它。自然是极其宝贵的。它值得我们的爱和尊重；我们应该关心和保护它。但我们可以完全以人类的角度来理解自然的价值。

First, the environmentalists are right that human flourishing depends on the environment. The soil, the rivers, the forests support our lives and well-being. Stewart Brand says we should “think of ecosystem services as infrastructure. A bridge is infrastructure, and so is the river under it. … Radio spectrum is infrastructure, and so is an intact ozone layer.”¹⁹ We should maintain natural infrastructure diligently, as we would a sewer or a power grid. And we should be mindful that nature is a complex system, whose behavior is difficult to predict or control. But there is no reason to consider the original, “pristine” state of nature as an ideal, or to minimize our impact on it. On the contrary, we should upgrade and improve it—as we do when we clear fields, dredge rivers, or control animal populations.
首先，环保主义者是正确的，人类的繁荣依赖于环境。土壤、河流、森林支撑着我们的生活和幸福。斯图尔特·布兰德（Stewart Brand）说我们应该“将生态系统服务视为基础设施。桥梁是基础设施，桥下的河流也是。…无线电频谱是基础设施，完整的臭氧层也是。”¹⁹我们应该像维护下水道或电网一样勤奋地维护自然基础设施。我们应该意识到自然是一个复杂系统，其行为难以预测或控制。但没有理由认为自然的原始“原始”状态是理想的，或者将我们对其影响最小化。相反，我们应该升级和改进它——就像我们在清理田地、疏浚河流或控制动物种群时所做的那样。

We should return to grand geological engineering projects, such as canals, dams, and land reclamation. Once we were boldly ambitious on this front. The Suez and Panama canals severed continents from one another and shortened travel distances by thousands of miles.²⁰ (Would these projects survive environmental review or activist obstructionism today?) Much of the land in major coastal cities including New York, San Francisco, and Boston was reclaimed from the ocean.²¹ Technologist Casey Handmer recently proposed to revitalize the Salton Sea and eliminate drought on the Colorado River by using solar power to desalinate water sourced from the Gulf of Mexico.²² Whether or not this plan should be adopted, it represents the scale we should be thinking on.
我们应该回归到宏伟的地质工程项目，比如运河、水坝和土地开垦。曾经我们在这方面胆大心细。苏伊士运河和巴拿马运河将大陆隔绝开来，缩短了数千英里的旅行距离。²⁰（这些项目今天是否能通过环境审查或活动家的阻挠？）包括纽约、旧金山和波士顿在内的许多主要沿海城市的土地是从海洋中开垦出来的。²¹技术专家 Casey Handmer 最近提议通过利用太阳能来脱盐墨西哥湾的水源，重振萨尔顿海，消除科罗拉多河上的干旱。²²无论这个计划是否应该被采纳，它代表了我们应该思考的规模。

The environmentalists are also right that nature has great spiritual value. The grandeur of the mountains, the seclusion of the forest, the sense of freedom on the open seas, are aesthetic experiences that restore and inspire us. But even to enjoy the beauty of nature, we control it. “The setting aside of wild nature is no less a human choice, in service of human preferences, than bulldozing it,” says the Ecomodernist Manifesto.²³ The most beautiful spots in nature are rare; we discover them, map them, and cordon them off in national parks. We find trails through the woods, mark and maintain them, upgrade them with stairs and railings for comfort and safety. We clear campgrounds and control dangerous animals. We ensure supplies of clean water. We stock medical necessities within reach. Our enjoyment of nature is an artificial experience.
环保主义者也是对的，自然具有巨大的精神价值。山的壮丽，森林的幽静，大海上的自由感，都是恢复和激励我们的审美体验。但即使是享受自然之美，我们也在控制着它。“保留野生自然与推土机推平它一样，同样是人类选择的一部分，为了人类的偏好而服务，”生态现代主义宣言说。23 最美丽的自然景点是稀有的；我们发现它们，绘制它们，并在国家公园中划出区域。我们在树林中找到小径，标记并维护它们，用楼梯和栏杆升级它们以提供舒适和安全。我们清理露营地并控制危险动物。我们确保有干净水源。我们储备必要的医疗用品以备不时之需。我们对自然的享受是一种人为的体验。

A human-centered value system can also recognize a value in animal welfare. It is a psychological value: we feel sympathy for animals as fellow living creatures, and we hate to see them suffer or be abused. We value animals to the extent that they are attractive, show capacity for joy and pain, and do not pose a threat to human life. People care more about polar bears, elephants, and dolphins than about snakes, shrimp, or mosquitoes.²⁴
一个以人为中心的价值体系也可以认识到动物福利的价值。这是一种心理价值：我们对动物作为同类生物感到同情，我们不愿看到它们受苦或被虐待。我们重视动物的程度取决于它们的吸引力，展示快乐和痛苦的能力，并且不对人类生命构成威胁。人们更关心北极熊、大象和海豚，而不是蛇、虾或蚊子。²⁴

Animal welfare is a luxury we purchase with technology and wealth. Tribal hunters would readily sacrifice animal welfare for their needs: some native American tribes would run an entire herd of bison off a cliff, creating a pile of corpses to use; one such site in Montana contains “up to eighteen feet of compacted buffalo remains.”²⁵ Today, in contrast, many people pay extra for eggs from free-range chickens. In the future, synthetic foods such as lab-grown meat may replace livestock entirely.²⁶ But any comfort we are willing to provide to animals, and any scruples we have concerning their treatment, are based entirely on our sympathy for them (and must fit within the resources we can reasonably devote to this cause).
动物福利是我们用技术和财富购买的奢侈品。部落猎人会毫不犹豫地为了他们的需求牺牲动物福利：一些美洲原住民部落会把整群野牛赶下悬崖，制造一堆尸体来利用；蒙大拿州的一个这样的地点包含“高达十八英尺的压缩野牛遗骸。”²⁵ 相比之下，今天许多人愿意额外支付购买放养鸡蛋。未来，实验室培育的人造食品，如培育肉，可能会完全取代牲畜。²⁶ 但我们愿意为动物提供的任何舒适，以及我们对待它们的任何顾虑，完全基于我们对它们的同情（并且必须符合我们可以合理投入到这一事业的资源）。

In short, this is an affirmation of anthropocentrism: placing humans at the center of our moral code.
简而言之，这是对人类中心主义的肯定：将人类置于我们道德准则的中心。

One movement within environmentalism, known as ecomodernism, rejects the romanticized view of nature and embraces a more human-centric approach. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Schellenberger, founders of the ecomodernist Breakthrough Institute, wrote in 2011 that we must “abandon both the dark, zero-sum Malthusian visions and the idealized and nostalgic fantasies for a simpler, more bucolic past in which humans lived in harmony with Nature.”²⁷ Ecomodernism “offers a positive vision of our environmental future, rejects Romantic ideas about nature as unscientific and reactionary, and embraces advanced technologies, including taboo ones, like nuclear power and genetically modified organisms, as necessary to reducing humankind’s ecological footprint.”²⁸
一个环保主义运动，被称为生态现代主义，拒绝了对自然的浪漫化观念，并采取了更加以人为中心的方法。生态现代主义突破研究所的创始人泰德·诺德豪斯和迈克尔·谢伦贝格在 2011 年写道，我们必须“放弃黑暗的零和马尔萨斯主义愿景和对一个更简单、更田园风光的过去的理想化和怀旧的幻想，那个过去中人类与自然和谐共处”。生态现代主义“提供了一个积极的环境未来愿景，拒绝了关于自然的浪漫化观念，认为这是不科学和反动的，并接受先进技术，包括禁忌的技术，如核能和基因改造生物，作为减少人类生态足迹的必要手段。”

The ecomodernism of the Breakthrough Institute and of writers such as Stewart Brand is closely allied with techno-humanism, and I agree with them on most issues. But my anthropocentrism is even more radical: there is no need to reduce our “ecological footprint,” and no reason, as stated in the Ecomodernist Manifesto, that “humanity must shrink its impacts on the environment to make more room for nature.”²⁹
Breakthrough Institute 和 Stewart Brand 等作家的生态现代主义与技术人文主义密切相关，我在大多数问题上都同意他们。但我的人类中心主义更加激进：没有必要减少我们的“生态足迹”，也没有理由，正如《生态现代主义宣言》所述，“人类必须减少对环境的影响，以便为自然腾出更多空间。”²⁹

Another wing of the environmentalist movement explicitly rejects anthropocentrism in favor of “biocentrism.” As biologist David Graber³⁰ explained, this refers to “those of us who value wildness for its own sake, not for what value it confers upon mankind”:
另一个环保主义运动的分支明确拒绝人类中心主义，而支持“生物中心主义”。正如生物学家大卫·格雷伯解释的那样，这指的是“我们这些将荒野视为自身价值，而非因其对人类的价值而重视的人”：

I, for one, cannot wish upon either my children or the rest of Earth’s biota a tame planet, a human-managed planet, be it monstrous or—however unlikely—benign. … We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value—to me—than another human body, or a billion of them. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. [emphasis added]³¹
我个人无法希望我的孩子或地球其他生物能够生活在一个温顺的星球上，一个由人类管理的星球，无论是怪物还是—尽管不太可能—温和的星球。……我们对某个物种、自由流动的河流或生态系统对人类的效用不感兴趣。 它们有内在价值， 对我来说，比另一个人体或十亿个人体更有价值。人类的幸福，当然也包括人类的繁殖能力，不如一个野生而健康的星球重要。[强调添加]³¹

The intrinsic value of nature, then, is different from the aesthetic value of a beautiful landscape, or the psychological value of animal welfare. It is explicitly divorced from human happiness, from any value to humanity.
自然的内在价值与美丽风景的审美价值或动物福利的心理价值不同。它明确地脱离了人类的幸福，脱离了对人类的任何价值。

But the very idea of the intrinsic value of nature is incoherent. There is no way to value nature for its own sake, because nature is not one thing with goals or desires. The interests of different species and different individuals are in constant tension. If we optimize for the zebra, we harm the lion. The climate that is best for the gila monster is terrible for the emperor penguin. To repeat, nature is inherently full of strife and conflict.
但自然固有价值的概念是不连贯的。没有办法单纯地为自然赋予价值，因为自然并非一个具有目标或欲望的整体。不同物种和个体的利益常常相互冲突。如果我们为斑马着想，就会伤害狮子。对于哥拉蜥蜴最适宜的气候对帝企鹅来说是糟糕的。再次强调，自然本质上充满了冲突和斗争。

If there were some standard of what is good for nature, then we could actively work to improve it. If it’s bad for species to go extinct, isn’t it good to de-extinct them through genetic engineering? Environmental ethicists have called de-extinction a “misallocation of effort,” a “risky ecological experiment,” and a flat-out “bad idea.”³² If it’s bad for the climate to change, isn’t it good to stabilize the climate through geoengineering? Almost four hundred scientists signed an open letter calling for an international non-use agreement on solar geoengineering, and a mere experiment with the technology planned at Harvard “was halted after objections by environmentalists and Indigenous leaders.”³³ If thriving, biodiverse ecosystems are good, isn’t it good to create new ones—say, on Mars, through terraforming? Carl Sagan wrote, “If there is life on Mars, I believe we should do nothing with Mars. Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes.”³⁴ Although these criticisms are usually framed as practical concerns over specific harms, and reasonable people could differ on any particular issue, the consistent theme is: opposition to human intervention in any form.
如果有一些关于什么对自然有益的标准，那么我们可以积极努力改善它。如果物种灭绝是不好的，通过基因工程复活它们不是好事吗？环境伦理学家称复活是一种“努力分配错误”，一种“危险的生态实验”，以及一种“彻头彻尾的坏主意”。如果气候变化是不好的，通过地球工程稳定气候不是好事吗？近四百名科学家签署了一封公开信，呼吁国际上停止使用太阳地球工程技术，并且哈佛计划的一项技术实验“在环保人士和土著领袖的反对后被中止”。如果繁荣、生物多样性的生态系统是好的，那么创造新的生态系统——比如在火星上通过造地工程——不是好事吗？卡尔·萨根写道：“如果火星上有生命，我认为我们不应该对火星做任何事情。火星属于火星人，即使火星人只是微生物。"³⁴尽管这些批评通常被表述为对特定伤害的实际关注，而且理性的人们在任何特定问题上可能会有不同意见，但一贯的主题是：反对任何形式的人类干预。"

If we can’t optimize on nature’s behalf, perhaps we should simply try to maintain stasis, limit change, reduce our “footprint”? Emma Marris writes:
如果我们无法代表自然进行优化，也许我们应该简单地尝试维持稳定，限制变化，减少我们的“足迹”？艾玛·玛丽斯写道：

For many conservationists, restoration to a prehuman or pre-European baseline is seen as healing a wounded or sick nature. For others, it is an ethical duty. We broke it; therefore we must fix it. Baselines thus … become the good, the goal, the one correct state.³⁵
对许多保护主义者来说，将自然恢复到人类或欧洲殖民前的状态被视为治愈受伤或生病的自然。对其他人来说，这是一种道德责任。我们破坏了它；因此我们必须修复它。因此，基线成为了善、目标、唯一正确的状态。³⁵

But there’s no reason to privilege the configuration of atoms that just happened to exist before humans. And to do so would be profoundly unnatural. Every organism changes its environment: consuming resources, constructing shelter, producing waste. The algae cover the sea, the cattle graze on the grasslands, the beavers dam the rivers. Many animals dig tunnels or burrows, or build nests or hives. The coral reefs greatly altered the marine environment when they formed hundreds of millions of years ago.³⁶ Perhaps the greatest change to the environment in Earth’s history was the Great Oxygenation Event some two billion years ago—caused by cyanobacteria. (Owing to the mass extinction of anaerobic organisms that probably followed, it is also known as the Oxygen Holocaust.)³⁷
但没有理由偏袒那些恰好在人类之前存在的原子配置。这样做将是非常不自然的。每个生物都改变着其环境：消耗资源、建造庇护所、产生废物。藻类覆盖着海洋，牛群在草原上吃草，海狸筑坝拦河。许多动物挖隧道或洞穴，或筑巢或蜂巢。珊瑚礁在数亿年前形成时极大地改变了海洋环境。³⁶也许地球历史上对环境造成的最大改变是大约二十亿年前的大氧化事件——由蓝藻细菌引起。（由于可能随之而来的厌氧生物的大规模灭绝，这也被称为氧气大屠杀。）³⁷

Humans modify our environment like every other species, we just do it more successfully and on a grander scale than most. And unlike the cyanobacteria, when we change the composition of the atmosphere, we have the potential to know what we are doing and to mitigate any harmful effects. But like all organisms, modifying our environment is how we live. To limit it is to limit human life. To limit us, and not other animals, is to single out humans for punishment and degradation.
人类像其他物种一样改变我们的环境，只是我们做得比大多数物种更成功，规模更宏大。与蓝藻细菌不同的是，当我们改变大气组成时，我们有潜力知道我们在做什么，并减轻任何有害影响。但像所有生物一样，改变我们的环境是我们生存的方式。限制这种行为就是限制人类生活。限制我们，而不是其他动物，就是单独对人类进行惩罚和贬低。

What, after all, is “nature”? A bird’s nest or an anthill is natural; a two-story condominium is unnatural. A chimp cracking a nut with a stone is natural; a human using a nutcracker is unnatural. If a river changes course because it erodes its banks and overflows them, that is natural; if it changes course because humans dug a canal, that is unnatural. If its banks are eroding and humans build a levee to stop it from changing course, that is also unnatural.³⁸ Global warming is natural if caused by an interglacial period, but unnatural if caused by industrial CO₂. Global cooling is natural if caused by stratospheric injection of sulfur dioxide from volcanoes, but unnatural if caused by stratospheric injection of sulfur dioxide from balloons.
究竟，“自然”是什么？一只鸟巢或一个蚁丘是自然的；一栋两层的公寓是不自然的。一只猩猩用石头砸坚果是自然的；一个人使用坚果夹是不自然的。如果一条河改变了它的流向，因为它侵蚀了河岸并溢出，那是自然的；如果它改变了流向，因为人类挖了一个运河，那是不自然的。如果它的河岸侵蚀了，人类修筑了一道堤坝来阻止它改变流向，那也是不自然的。38 全球变暖是自然的，如果是由间冰期引起的，但如果是由工业二氧化碳引起的，那就是不自然的。如果由火山向平流层注入二氧化硫引起的全球变冷是自然的，但如果是由气球向平流层注入二氧化硫引起的，那就是不自然的。

The only coherent definition of “nature” here is: the negation of humanity. The absence of human agency. Nature is whatever is not us, whatever we did not choose to do or create. It is the world as we found it, as it happened to us, rather than the world we made.³⁹ An essay published by the Sierra Club explains:
这里对“自然”的唯一连贯定义是：否定人类。没有人类行动的存在。自然是任何不是我们的东西，任何我们没有选择去做或创造的东西。它是我们发现的世界，发生在我们身上的事情，而不是我们创造的世界。《塞拉俱乐部》发表的一篇文章解释道：

The wild persists as a place that remains undominated (if not untouched) by humans. A wild land is self-willed and sovereign—the rivers are free, the animals free, the fires free. … We need some spaces free of human intention, places where the herds still freely roam and the rivers are undammed.⁴⁰
野生仍然是一个人类未能统治（即使没有被触及）的地方。 野生土地是自主和主权的 - 河流自由，动物自由，火焰自由。 ... 我们需要一些没有人类意图的空间，那些牛群仍然自由漫游，河流没有被堵塞的地方。⁴⁰

To place intrinsic value on nature, then, is ultimately nihilistic and profoundly anti-human. Continuing the quote from David Graber above:
将自然的内在价值放在首位，最终是虚无主义的，深刻地反人类。继续引用上面的大卫·格雷伯的话：

I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line… we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. … Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.⁴¹
我认识一些社会科学家，他们提醒我人类是自然的一部分，但这并不是真的。在某个时刻……我们违约了，成为了一个癌症。我们已经成为了自己和地球的灾难。……直到智人决定重新融入自然，我们中的一些人只能希望合适的病毒出现。⁴¹

Radical anthropocentrism is an extreme stance, and I don’t expect everyone to endorse it, even among techno-humanists. Many of my colleagues value animal welfare, biodiversity, or the environment in general, and aren’t comfortable with basing all of these on human well-being. Some, on utilitarian grounds, place fundamental moral worth on all sentient experience.⁴² Others may adopt a Christian view in which the Earth belongs neither to humans nor to animals, but to God (which can lean more or less anthropocentric depending on how much one emphasizes God giving man dominion over the Earth⁴³ versus our responsibility to be stewards of God’s creation⁴⁴). But I am stating my position here in order to stake it out, and because I believe my conception of the value of nature is the only consistent position that deserves the title of “humanism.”
激进的人类中心主义是一种极端立场，我并不指望每个人都会支持它，即使在技术人道主义者中也是如此。我的许多同事重视动物福利、生物多样性或环境总体状况，并不愿意把所有这些都建立在人类福祉之上。一些人出于功利主义的理由，认为所有有感知经历的生物都具有基本的道德价值。其他人可能采取基督教观点，认为地球既不属于人类也不属于动物，而是属于上帝（这取决于一个人在强调上帝赋予人类对地球的统治权力还是我们有责任成为上帝创造物的管理者时，人类中心主义的程度可能会有所不同）。但我在这里陈述我的立场是为了明确表明，因为我相信我对自然价值的理解是唯一值得称为“人道主义”的一致立场。

In The Control of Nature, John McPhee describes the quest for human agency as the
在《自然的控制》中，约翰·麦克菲描述了对人类行为的追求

struggle against natural forces—heroic or venal, rash or well advised—when human beings conscript themselves to fight against the earth, to take what is not given, to rout the destroying enemy, to surround the base of Mt. Olympus demanding and expecting the surrender of the gods.⁴⁵
与自然力量作斗争——不论是英勇还是卑鄙，轻率还是明智——当人类自愿投身与地球对抗，夺取未给予的东西，击溃毁灭的敌人，包围奥林匹斯山脚下，要求并期待众神的投降。⁴⁵

Humanity grew up in a world ruled by those gods. Now, we wield godlike powers ourselves. Material progress has granted us this agency, and that is the greatest praise I can bestow upon it.
人类在一个由那些神统治的世界中长大。现在，我们自己拥有类似神的力量。物质进步赋予了我们这种能力，这是我能赞美它的最大赞美。

1. Leopold, Sand County Almanac, 196.
   Leopold, 《桑德县年鉴》，196.
2. McKibben, “Hope, Human and Wild,” “New Deal for Nature.”
   麦基本，“希望，人类和野生”，“自然新政。”
3. Doncaster et al, “Living in Harmony with Nature.”
   唐卡斯特等人，“与自然和谐共处。”
4. United Nations, “Harmony with Nature,” 2018; Kórösi, “Harmony with Nature”; António Guterres, “International Mother Earth Day.”
   联合国，“与自然和谐”，2018 年；Kórösi，“与自然和谐”；安东尼奥·古特雷斯，“国际地球母亲日”。
5. Salvador, “Earth to Humans”; Bout, “5 Reasons We Need Wildlife.”
   Salvador，“地球对人类”; Bout，“我们需要野生动物的 5 个理由.”
6. United Nations, “Harmony with Nature,” 2017.
   联合国，“与自然和谐”，2017。
7. Kórösi, “Harmony with Nature.”
   Kórösi，“与自然和谐。”
8. Hickel, “Degrowth: A Call for Radical Abundance.”
9. “Population, Affluence, and Technology”; Oxford Reference, “IPAT.”
10. Rhodes, Energy: A Human History, quoting Elaine Scarry.
11. Marris, Rambunctious Garden, 18. Corroborating this, Charles Mann writes in The Wizard and the Prophet (p. 372) that in the mid-19th century, “‘wilderness’ meant to most people wastelands full of dangerous creatures: places to be subdued.”
12. Service, Spell of the Yukon, 21-22.
13. According to the top Google search definition, which cites the Oxford English Dictionary.
14. Singh, “Strategy to Avoid Infanticide.”
15. Mock, “Avian Siblicide.”
16. Tennyson, In Memoriam A.H.H, LVII.
17. Hans Rosling writes: “Have you heard people say that humans used to live in balance with nature? Well, yes, there was a balance. But let’s avoid the rose-tinted glasses. Until 1800, women gave birth to six children on average. So the population should have increased with each generation. Instead, it stayed more or less stable. Remember the child skeletons in the graveyards of the past? On average four out of six children died before becoming parents themselves, leaving just two surviving children to parent the next generation. There was a balance. It wasn’t because humans lived in balance with nature. Humans died in balance with nature. It was utterly brutal and tragic.” (Rosling, Factfulness, 87.)
18. Bacon, The New Organon, 6.
19. Brand, Whole Earth Discipline, 16.
20. Worthington, “Panama Canal,” “Suez Canal Crisis.”
21. “The Changing Shoreline of New York City”; Netzer, “Future Development of San Francisco”; St. Onge, “Putting Boston on the Map.”
22. Handmer, “It’s 2024 and Drought is Optional.”
23. “An Ecomodernist Manifesto.”
24. The technical term for this is the “phyloempathic hierarchy” (Paulhus, “The Phyloempathic Hierarchy”). This is a broad generalization. There are more philosophic approaches, based in utilitarianism, that use sentience as the basis of moral value, and take seriously the welfare of shrimp or wild animals (“Crustacean Welfare”, Matthews, “Wild Frontier of Animal Welfare”).
25. National Park Service, “First Peoples’ Buffalo Jump State Park,” UNESCO, “Head Smashed in Buffalo Jump.”
26. Alwahaidi, “Lab Grown Meat Could be the Future of Food.”
27. Nordhaus, “Long Death of Environmentalism.”
28. Shellenberger, “On Becoming an Ecomodernist.”
29. “An Ecomodernist Manifesto.” Note that some ecomodernists are more human-centered than others. Alex Trembath, for instance, also writing for the Breakthrough Institute, says that “Anthropocentrism is one of the primary characteristics distinguishing ecomodernism from conventional environmentalism” (“Differences Between Ecomodernism and Effective Altruism”), and that “ultimately, the choice of how and where to protect nature will be a human one, driven not by what we have to do to survive, but what we want to do to thrive on an ecologically vibrant planet” (“Protecting Nature Because We Want to”).
30. Not to be confused with popular author David Graeber, of “bullshit jobs” fame.
31. Graber, “Mother Nature as a Hothouse Flower.”
32. Erlich, “The Case Against De-Extinction,” llester, “A Risky Ecological Experiment,” Martindale, “Bringing Back Wooly Mammoths.”
33. Milman, “Can Geoengineering Fix the Climate?”
34. Sagan, Cosmos, 170.
35. Marris, Rambunctious Garden, 3.
36. Hallock, “Reefs in Earth History.”
37. Aiyer, “The Great Oxidation Event.”
38. For an excellent story of building levees to maintain the course of the Mississippi River, see “Atchafalaya” in McPhee, The Control of Nature, which is quoted towards the end of this chapter. Similar stories could be told of the Yellow River and other rivers around the world (Carter, “When the Yellow River Changes Course”).
39. One environmental ethics textbook explicitly states that “environmental ethicists often employ a conception of nature on which something is natural to the extent that it is independent of human design, control and impacts” (emphasis original). (Valera, Global Changes, 85.)
40. Mark, “The Garden, Reconsidered.”
41. Graber, “Hothouse Flower.”
42. Sebo, “Utilitarianism and Nonhuman Animals.”
43. Genesis 1:28. Historian Lynn White blamed Christian anthropocentrism for “our ecologic crisis,” saying that it “not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends” (White, “Historical Roots of Ecological Crisis”).
44. Francis, Laudato Si’, paragraphs 67–69, 116.
45. McPhee, Control of Nature, p. 69.

For The Techno-Humanist Manifesto‘s complete bibliography, visit The Roots of Progress.