It’s time once again for the Shell/Economist Essay Contest, in whichyou can win vast sums of money by reusing those high-school expository writing skills. The question last year was “How much freedom should we trade for security?” The winning answer was “none,” and boiled down to the old saw, “boats in a harbor are safe, but that is not what boats are for,” complete with sailing metaphor.
This year’s theme is “Do we need nature?” which has, more or less, the same set of answers: Yes, no, and “trick question.”
Yes, we should give up the liberties a, b, and c in order to maintain safety from dangers d, e, and f. No, no amount of security is worth trading away one iota of our precious freedom. Yes, we need nature for air and warmth and undiscovered plant remedies. No, we don’t need nature, unless you mean some subset of it for raw materials from which we can synthesize everything else.
The third kind of answer argues against the question rather than for the answers it suggests most readily. It says that freedom cannot be traded for security as though they were fungible commodities, or that humanity is part of nature, everything is part of nature, there isn’t any question about needing it or not.
I can think of a dozen reasons why humanity needs nature, and I can certainly support the assertion that the question is unanswerable because humanity and nature are one. But since at least the early 1960s, I don’t think anyone with any serious intellectual ability has actually argued that humanity and nature are not only distinct, but separable, and that humanity controls nature or does not need it.
Although I normally gravitate toward “trick question” type answers, since those are the best way to show off my cleverness, I think that a “no” is probably the more difficult to argue.
Early reviews of Silent Spring accused Carson of alarmism, and stated that “man controls nature.” But that argument, along with the gender bias in its phrasing, has gone the way of the dodo, and for about the same reasons: it’s just too stupid to survive.
Today, there are throwbacks, living in special preserves of political isolation, like giant pandas in a zoo, too ineffectual to breed and preserve their species. For example, Secretary of the Interior James Watt thought conservation was a sin because God had given us just enough resources to last until the End Times, and that those dirty hippies were delaying the return of Christ by trying to save the forests.
I’m sure a “no” answer won’t win the contest– Shell is sponsoring, and they’ll want to burnish their environmentalist credentials. But is there anything even close to a legitimate or defensible “no” answer?
Secretly Ironic 
I guess you are right, and then perhaps for the purpose of the argument, we might need to make a distinction between man and nature, just like they do in the question.
Then we would have to agree to a definition of nature that allows us to make a valid argument. For example, Websters definition 1 for nature is “the material world and its phenomena”, which doesn’t help much, nor the remaning meanings.
LikeLike
This was such a well written and entertaining piece. Kudos. I saw the Shell advertisement in this week’s New Yorker and thought that it was so ironic. Being the corporate-time-stealing-weasel that I am I thought I would give the essay a comic try alla Slovoj Zizek. Whether I write an essay or not, I am glad it lead me to this site.
Maybe the no answer is made legitimate by the fact that man spends so much energy trying to cirumvent or negate nature. Its a tough arguement–we can look to so many archetitural movements that failed because of their unwillingness to incorporate nature.
LikeLike
I too saw the ad in this week’s New Yorker and was compelled not only to search the net for possible environmentalist answers to this questions, but also other views on this subject. After consulting the Shell website and reading what they felt qualified as guides for the essay, I decided that this probably won’t be something I write, unless, of course I take a route non-research minded, one that doesn’t deal with genetic engineering, gene therapy, and human cloning, which weren’t topics that sprang to my mind when reading the question. What came to my mind was the nature that Rachel Carson, Aldo Leopold, and Edward Abbey were writing about and defending. Serious meditation on this subject has led me to conclude that there is no real answer to this question, for how can one truly defend the statement “We need nature” and vice versa? How can anyone express in words why we need nature? Nature, in the environmental sense, is something that you just have to experience.
LikeLike
I wish I had the time, but would love to read somenones thought on Nature needing man
LikeLike
Yeah, we need nature. I don’t think nature needs us, though.
LikeLike
We need nature more than it needs us. I live in a very beautiful part of the Finger Lakes, in which nature is revered. When ever I make my way down to a small city for work, I can’t help but notice how beautiful the lakes are, and how blessed I am to see its ever changing colors. What does make sad though is to see even in this city where the large proportion of the population is against the destruction of any kind of natural habit, it still happens because some big wig wants to “better the economy”, so therefore beautiful watershed habitats are destroyed for big box stores and the envitible strip mall. I ronically, the still does not improve, but we have lost abundant wildlife and their homes forever. All for the “almighty dollar”. Personally, I find that not only devastating because nature and the animal life was here long before we were, but we have no regard for it. Why is that? To me a world without nature would be like a world that was empty, devoid, and the ugliest place you ever did see. A bit like Hell, wouldn’t you say?
LikeLike
This question is seriously dodgy. The very asking of this question presupposes that one could answer “no”. The only way a “no” answer could be justified is by defining nature as a set of usable resources that ‘we’ utilise and/or locating ‘nature’ as being somehwere ‘out there’, that is, where humans are not. Where does this ‘nature’ begin or end? THe answer that they are looking for is probably connected to some vague sense of stewardship and sustainability (whatever they mean) that simply reinforces the apparent need for transnational companies and an unethical capitalist system to continue on in much the same vein but with some fuzzy, superficially feel-good ‘green’ cred. The question really is, what sort of mentaility and what underlying vision of the world would come up with this question in the first place? What does nature mean in this question? The meaning of nature itself is a shifting, socially, historically and culturally contingent definition of something that developed out of a western-centred perspective that contrasted it with, amongst other things – civilised, culture, artificial, even human. But all of this is really pointless, the essay is not aimed at obntaining serious views on the issue but rather at finding socially ‘appropriate’ ways of reinforcing their own already hardened and narrow views. Look at the ‘sub-questions’ on the web-site…anyone who still uses the term ‘man’ to refer to human beings has thought very little about this issue……
LikeLike
Anyone interested in exploring the most profound and beautifully expressed answer(s) to the question of why we need nature should read the poem “Tintern Abbey” (1798) by William Wordsworth. He wrote this work at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution at the precise moment when humankind needed to re-define its perception of and relationship to nature. In fact, it’s the only poem I know that raises–and answers–every important question related to this topic. Look to the poets, folks! They usually get there first with the best.
LikeLike
The question is relative and seeks, essentially, for a few thousand entries of personal opinion. It’s the word “nature” that proves impeding, not if we need it or not. One has to dwell for some time on the semantics of the word “nature” and what it is and means to self.
LikeLike
In as much as we are living, alot depends on man. There is no way that man and nature will be one and to a large extend man must axplore nature to his advantage.
LikeLike
In my own views, I would say we need nature in almost all our endeavours. Even as I am interested in knowing the distinction between man and nature, man still needs nature alot to survive.This year’s theme is very challenging and as such should bring out the best in the enviroment because man has done enough and is still possibly exploring ways of tackling the numerous problems encountered in dealing with nature.My answer is yes man needs nature.
LikeLike
i really think we need nature as nature has been the soure of humanity, that goes to say that without nature humanity cannot exist as the air we breathe is nature and even the food and more importantly the water we drink are all natural.
LikeLike
Is it any wonder to anyone that shell is asking this question,”Do we need nature”?.Anyway,i am not surprised because we humans are fascinated with eternity.In an age where man seems to be the ruler and cause of all landmark events including breakthroughs in various fields like medicine,technology,commerce and even in the world of writers where the mind search the deepest pits of wisdom and comes out with brain-twisting,heart-throbbing and incredible ideas on paper.In books,movies or our portfolios,we are always looking for the perfect long-term solution,and now shell or any other controversy loving,wisdom seeker who may or may not want to incorporate nature at the expense of anything should know that “nature cannot be cheated”.
I’ll try and dwell extensively in my response to the topic.So,great minds out there should watch out for my opinion about the nagging issue.
LikeLike
Well, well.
Do we need nature? Without saying more than one word, YES.
We are, we love and we hate nature.
We/nature reflect itself in everyway everyday.
We want, or need to see, to be…nature.
LikeLike
it will be a very silly question to be asked that
we need nature ? ofcourse we need nature ‘coz only
nature provide us the super things which we beings can’t create.
YES we need nature it is on the first priority.
LikeLike
it will be a very silly question to be asked that
we need nature ? ofcourse we need nature ‘coz only
nature provide us the super things which we beings can’t create.
YES we need nature it is on the first priority.
LikeLike
i believe we need nature,cos if you take a look at all that exists-ranging from clothing to other accessories we do need nature.
LikeLike
We cannot deny nature without denying our own existence as human beings. we may control nature, but that is our destiny we are controlling
LikeLike
Girls constantly remind me that I need nature…
LikeLike
This question, questions many answers?
But one thing is for sure, human + nature = Nature!
We cannot foresee or calculate the future but we can only imagine and that we need to learn from the asset we only have in our books and thats the past.
This whole question would have been a great thing just as science is, as long as one doesn’t have to make a living out of it. What does shell still do? or do they need creativity to still do what they do now but just a bit different!??
In the end its again all about PROFITs$$$$$!
And Darwinsm ” only the strongest survive” who has cash these days doesnt need ethics, they make ethics!
LikeLike
DO we need nature?.. i think this question should not not be asked .. coz we all know its answer.. “YES”..
its like u ask me do u need water!!!!
we should say that nature need us nowadays more than we need it.. nature needs the man’s help in order to give us what we need.. so NATURE NEED US FIRST THEN WE NEED NATURE..if we doesn’t help nature; it will be damaged and thus………..
LikeLike
I liked everybodies comments. Making a distinction between ourselves and nature, the point at which we may be said by various relative bounderies, to differentiate presupposes we will become mutually exclusive at some point. If we would have no need of nature at somejuncture that could be found —- The assumption that forgiveness for seperation could be achieved without a sense of abandonment — that would lift the guilt of self-mutilation we have wreaked on the planet == that we could get away with it, or in this case without it=== if we can’t escape it ,
how could we leave it.
The fact that there is no escaping nature, even our own, is the most dunning of the tragic flaws. Our Oedipal culture that has unwittingly killed the father and congugated the mother.
Bringing forth a vocabulary in which we are all culprits. Do we need nature? Begs the question , What have we got to lose? A couple of star fish and pelicans, with the polar caps shrinking , who needs those polar bears and seals. Let the forests of Arizona burn, more place to sprawl.
How much nature do we need? For goodness sake.
You can jog on a tread mill.With some goggles and earphones you can put yourself in a snowstorm during your work out and come away more refreshed that if you had to drive to the Rockies. A world of I=Max and memory itself would become a memory.
the scifi on the hifi…..
LikeLike
I liked everybodies comments. Making a distinction between ourselves and nature, the point at which we may be said by various relative bounderies, to differentiate presupposes we will become mutually exclusive at some point. If we would have no need of nature at somejuncture that could be found —- The assumption that forgiveness for seperation could be achieved without a sense of abandonment — that would lift the guilt of self-mutilation we have wreaked on the planet == that we could get away with it, or in this case without it=== if we can’t escape it ,
how could we leave it.
The fact that there is no escaping nature, even our own, is the most dunning of the tragic flaws. Our Oedipal culture that has unwittingly killed the father and congugated the mother.
Bringing forth a vocabulary in which we are all culprits. Do we need nature? Begs the question , What have we got to lose? A couple of star fish and pelicans, with the polar caps shrinking , who needs those polar bears and seals. Let the forests of Arizona burn, more place to sprawl.
How much nature do we need? For goodness sake.
You can jog on a tread mill.With some goggles and earphones you can put yourself in a snowstorm during your work out and come away more refreshed that if you had to drive to the Rockies. A world of I=Max and memory itself would become a memory.
the scifi on the hifi…..
LikeLike
I liked everybodies comments. Making a distinction between ourselves and nature, the point at which we may be said by various relative bounderies, to differentiate presupposes we will become mutually exclusive at some point. If we would have no need of nature at somejuncture that could be found —- The assumption that forgiveness for seperation could be achieved without a sense of abandonment — that would lift the guilt of self-mutilation we have wreaked on the planet == that we could get away with it, or in this case without it=== if we can’t escape it ,
how could we leave it.
The fact that there is no escaping nature, even our own, is the most dunning of the tragic flaws. Our Oedipal culture that has unwittingly killed the father and congugated the mother.
Bringing forth a vocabulary in which we are all culprits. Do we need nature? Begs the question , What have we got to lose? A couple of star fish and pelicans, with the polar caps shrinking , who needs those polar bears and seals. Let the forests of Arizona burn, more place to sprawl.
How much nature do we need? For goodness sake.
You can jog on a tread mill.With some goggles and earphones you can put yourself in a snowstorm during your work out and come away more refreshed that if you had to drive to the Rockies. A world of I=Max and memory itself would become a memory.
the scifi on the hifi…..
LikeLike
Here’s a good example of nature’s presence and the aboriginal concept of “flux” in the natural world. Whether or not we need, use or respect nature, it’s there. Always in flux, nature demands adaptability, not control.
An example. In Canada, there was a great battle between environmentalists and a forestry multi-national. The latter was given an exclusive license to log the Christmas mountains. The environmentalists protested the logging of this particular forest. Nature made the decision. In the midst of the debate, a great wind storm blew down all the disputed trees on Christmas mountain. Those traditionally closest to nature and who were present in the Christmas Mountains for the longest period, the aboriginal peoples, cleaned up after the storm and salvaged the wood fibre. An example of flux in nature and a human responsibility to adapt.
LikeLike
almost everybody agrees that yes we do need nature…….this justifiable opinion however, doesnt provide any solutions to the problems we face today…..everytime you wipe your arse with tissue paper, do you say to yourself, ‘save the trees!’?…….instead of condoning the efforts of modern society to find solutions, why not ask yourself what do YOU contribute to this effort?……..are you in any way taking that step even?…….good intentions alone do not produce positive results…….think about it next time you sit on the loo………perhaps one, just one truly magnificient idea from all the writers here would help change our course in future…….all this yapping posted are of no consequence at all…..if you feel that strongly about preserving nature, then do something about it…..
LikeLike
I realy beleive we need nature because human activities revolves around its natural inhabitance.
LikeLike
nature,like a kind and smiling mother,lends herself to our dreams ans cherishes our fancies.
nature had always had more force than education.
we can live without our friends but not without nature
nature to be commanded must be obeyed.
LikeLike
Whakarongo ake ai ao ki te tangi aa te manu nei aa te maatuuii – tuuii tuuii tuuiiaa (listen carefully to the sound of this bird and weave, weaave, weave unite all things into a powerful expression of a lust for life, tihei mauriora!
LikeLike
I really enjoyed the comments posted here, especially the first ones, and those of Natalie. I definitely think we need nature, and I am a big advocate of preserving the environment, and I make efforts to “save the trees” and recycle and whatnot. I was considering writing the essay for the Shell/Economist and I realized it would be very hard to write an essay on the “yes, we need nature” stance because look at who we’re dealing here: it’s not like they give a damn about nature or anything. It’s all about the economy and profits in the end. I was also thinking that maybe I could write about how nature is essential to humanity and human life…. but it’s also not like they care about humanity and all that…. just look at their behavior and how they treat other people (especially those who speak out against them). However, I would like that scholarship money (and I’m not saying I would win it), but I was thinking….. what if you could prove that a good environment actually improves the economy? That in order to maximize profits and therefore benefitting the economy (which is what really makes Shell tick in the first place) we must have nature, and a healthy, complete one at that. Sure, it would require some bullshitting, but come on, that’s what half of these essays are about anyways. I have found some evidence and quotations to back me up and I was thinking it’s worth a shot. That way, I can defend my stance (yes we need nature!) and still please the Shell/Economist with all my bullshit about the economy. What thinkith the rest of you?
LikeLike