Is Science Smarter Than Nature?
December 30th, 2008
The complexity and balance of nature is simply amazing and we may only be scratching the surface toward understanding how it all works. Even the complexity of a single cell is quite amazing, so it can be overwhelming when you consider that we each have trillions of them.
Many of these cells are specialized and grouped together to form glands, organs, systems, muscles, and bones that are perfectly integrated with each other and provide the incredible result we know as life. This is all the natural result of evolution. Ironically, it’s the intelligence we also gained through evolution that gives us the ability to manipulate, for better or worse, this delicate balance that nature has so cleverly created.
Are We Victims of Our Own Intelligence?
As humans, we have the consciousness to philosophize about life and reflect on emotion. As a result, we all want to live long and happy lives. While science has enabled us to manipulate the odds in our favor in some respects, it’s reduced our odds in others. After all, science is invention and discovery that results from human intelligence, and human intelligence is not immune to mistakes, greed, or corruption.
Regarding the long and happy life we all want to live, our own intelligence has led to a level of arrogance that is bringing us farther away from our goal. This is evident by the many diseases that were rare less than a century ago but are so rampant today. Science has allowed us to live far more sophisticated lives than our ancestors and the result is a lot more wear and tear. In other words, our intelligence has given us the opportunity to live a lifestyle that our bodies are not evolved to handle.
Back to Basics
Whenever something begins to function poorly, the obvious solution is to consider the point in time when it was last functioning well, identify what was different, and resolve the difference to restore proper function. Today, we have exceedingly high rates of preventable diseases that were quite rare less than a century ago. Heart disease and cancer are two of them. What has changed since these diseases became so prevalent? We stopped listening to nature, that’s what changed!
Common sense should tell us that many of the evolutionary habits that promoted our current existence should also promote optimal health. Instead of paying attention to this common sense, we’re eating poor quality synthetic foods instead of the natural nutritious foods we evolved on, we’re exposing ourselves to thousands of chemicals on a daily basis that didn’t even exist just a century ago, we’re ignoring the natural day and night cycle that we followed for millions of years, and on a daily basis, we’re subjecting ourselves to far more stress than our ancestors could even imagine. Is it any wonder that most of us aren’t functioning well?
Who’s to Blame?
Science has given us many forms of advancement, but we’ve become so detached from nature and the habits that made us what we are today that we’re losing our health and are becoming desperate for science to magically fix it. That’s not how it works! The laws of nature should be what guide us toward health and happiness, and science should be there to help along the way, not the other way around.
We need to remember that science is just an interpretation of nature. It’s not always correct and isn’t always intended to support our best interests. We have to take responsibility for our own health and aim to have a critical opinion that allows the laws of nature and common sense to help us differentiate the sound and useful science from the junk.
Post this on Twitter
Post this on Facebook
Support this on StumbleUpon
Email this to friends
Leave a comment
Lots of great articles! However, since evolution did not happen [zero evidence], you might want to rethink using this theory as a basis for information. Stick to observable facts, scientific data and true information. Otherwise aren’t you just believing and promoting myths like everyone else does? Other than that, I have found your articles very interesting and I am learning a lot! Thanks.
Hi Marci,
Thanks for your feedback, I’m pleased to know that you’re enjoying the site.
While evolution hasn’t been proven, it hasn’t been refuted either and I personally believe that there’s a lot of convincing evidence to support it. As such, I think it’s harsh to say so confidently that it didn’t happen.
I agree that evolution does add a certain level of subjectivity to some of my writing, but regardless of whether or not evolution really happened, the basic premise here is still the same. It’s pretty obvious that during the 200,000 years of our existence and the millions of years that our close relatives existed, processed foods, pharmaceuticals and other forms of synthetic chemicals were not what kept us functioning at our best.
Whether we’re the result of evolution or some form of divine invention, much of modern medicine is based on the notion that we’re smarter than whatever it is that led to our creation. While our intelligence has provided us with some amazing advancement, the primary point I am making here is that there should be more appreciation and respect for our dependency on nature and the fact that we may very well not understand it as well as we think.
This article makes me think of that old margarine commercial that some of you may remember. It features a woman playing Mother Nature and she gets pissed off that she was fooled that Parkay Margarine was really butter. The final line was..”It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature”. Then she strikes them with lightening…lol.
It’s not nice indeed!
Here’s the commercial:
“Science has allowed us to live far more sophisticated lives than our ancestors and the result is a lot more wear and tear.”
So true, yet so sad.
I think science has been misused as the compulsive attempt to gain control over nature and the future. Because it’s easy for humans to feel out of control of their lives, which brings up a lot of existential fear.
Marci, it’s important to note that no scientific theory can ever be proven. Theory and science are based on statistics, which by nature can never be a complete data set… only a “best explanation.” Evolution may not be proven, but it has significant enough data to be the “best explanation” for various biological phenomena.
Hi Melissa, thanks for your comment!
What’s ironic is that the perceived control resulting from scientific intervention creates situations that are even more worrisome than the uncertainty of nature. I’ve been reading a lot about electromagnetic pollution lately which is an excellent example.
Its funny how a lot of science is now leading us back to nature (climate change, healthy eating, bare foot running!?) Its like we’ve wandered off the trail, science will lead us back to nature, and it’ll all look like a waste of time.
Hi Brad, thanks for your comment!
What you said reminds me of a funny jab at the timeline of modern medicine that I commonly see:
I agree that we’ve wandered off the trail and have come full circle, but I don’t think it’s a waste. It’s part of the learning process, and despite all of the confusion, there is now more knowledge available to us than ever. For example, in line with the quote above, we now know that natural substances (roots), synthetic drugs (pills), and antibiotics each have a different set of benefits and disadvantages that make each of them more or less preferable than the others in certain situations. However, coming to this understanding seems to have required the sequence of having too much appreciation for one perspective and not enough for the rest of them. Unfortunately, politics and monetary influence can slow this learning process down significantly which is a major problem with much of today’s research.
I have just started reading through this website and have a couple of comments to make. Firstly, the scientific community, with the exception of some fringe elements, accepts evolution as fact and only debates the mechanisms by which it has taken place (and continues to do so). Secondly, there are many references to diseases that did not exist a century ago, particularly cancers. Cancer did exist over a century ago (John Adams’ daughter had breast cancer). I think an important fact that is overlooked, and is something the medical community has gotten right, is that far fewer death occur due to infectious disease, which typically struck people before they were old enough to exhibit or die from many of the afflictions that are prevalent today. This is a very significant factor in the shift of leading causes of death. I know these articles strive to give the best information responsibly, and I think it is only fair to point this fact out. This certainly doesn’t detract from your thesis that humans are living contrary to nature with caustic effects – a point I completely agree with. Thank you for this website, and I look forward to implementimg the many suggestions into my own lifestyle.
Hi Alec, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I didn’t mean to imply that cancer didn’t exist a century ago, but I think it’s fair to say that it was much less prevalent, even to the extent that it could have been considered rare or uncommon. In relation to people living more naturally back then, which was more by default than choice, this lower prevalence of chronic disease is supported by the work of Weston A. Price, Vilhjalmur Stefansson, and others who’ve studied primitive cultures who were not yet exposed to modern foods and technologies.
I absolutely agree that advances in modern medicine have greatly reduced death from acute infection, and this is of course highly valuable. However, given that such advances are typically followed by profit oriented incentives, they tend to be taken too far. Not that there’s anything wrong with profit, I actually think it’s a valuable motivator for innovation, but there is indeed something wrong with the tendency for many doctors to prescribe antibiotics for practically every symptom of the common cold and neglect to give good advice on how to strengthen immunity and better avoid such symptoms in the first place.
Clearly, I think what we need is balance, and although there’s been a lot of improvement in regard to respecting nature and it’s influence on health, I think we still have plenty of room for improvement.