Mr. Suzuki states nothing about nature is
simple. Yes, it is true. Although we human beings always declared
proudly that we can get to understand and change nature and
we actually have done so, never can we assert that we have
fully known the nature of nature, not to speak of controlling
it. Why? Just as Suzuki said, “our natural systems have, over
millions of years, developed complex systems of checks and
balances”. Nature, the one we are living in and living with,
seldom behave “in a simple, linear fashion”. Therefore, “in
spite of all our scientific advances, we are only just beginning
to understand how ecosystems work”.
This reminds me of the philosophy of science. Science, as
the way to understand the laws of nature, is not simple of
course, now that nature itself is not a simple matter. The
more we know, the more we find that we don’t know. Then someone,
frightened by Suzuki’s remarks about the complexity of nature
or the complex nature of science, may ask, “Since nature and
science are so complex, can we humans really understand them?”
A pessimistic, agnostic view. However, complexity is not the
only one side of science. We should not be scared by it, and
notice the other side---simplicity. For example, Einstein’s
theory of relativity is famous for its complexity and abstruseness,
but it takes a very simple form, E=mc2, and Einstein didn’t
draw his conclusion from a mass of complicated experiments.
The nature of science is always complex, but it often hides
behind some simple facts or phenomena, and the process we
get to understand it usually begins with simplifying. It is
a balance between the nature of science and the way to do
scientific research. Think about how we conduct a research
now. We collect data and facts, and then make assumptions
and hypotheses to simplify the matter. No doubt the results
we obtain in this way will fall short of scientific veracity
and authenticity; however, this is what we can but do. Suppose
that we haven’t made the assumption of “rational economic
people”, how can we simplify the complicated economic behaviors
and develop the neo-classic economics?
This philosophy also applies to nature. Nature is never simple,
but we may find some simple rules of nature from some simple
observations, or may simplify the complex nature to ecosystems,
communities, species, etc. Nevertheless, oversimplification
will lead to inaccuracy, and even error. That’s why Mr. Suzuki
warned us not to be blindly optimistic of our scientific advances.
Considering my major, what kind of attitude should I hold?
One word which I learned from the lesson International Environmental
Law can best demonstrate my attitude towards nature. That
is, precautionary. It is a fundamental rule of environmental
law and environmental preservation. It means, namely, that
one should be cautious even before he doesn’t know whether
an adverse effect of an act will arise. This is something
to keep in mind when we consider climate change, genetically
modified organisms or biodiversity conservation, and so on.
I still remember once a teacher of law school asked me, “Why
you environmentalists pay so much attention to biodiversity?
Is a bird species whose name is quite strange to 99% of the
world worth the great expense used to protect it?” Then I
presented my answer, “I don’t know whether it is worthwhile
now, but I am not sure about that tomorrow. Perhaps some day
in the future, the gene of the bird becomes invaluable to
us. Who knows? We ought to protect the species from dying
out just for this probability.” This is precautionary. Another
example, GMOs. No one can tell exactly and doubtless what
bad influences GMOs can perform, while at present, the production,
transportation, vendition, use, etc. of GMOs are regulated
and restricted in many areas of the world, for the sake of
precaution.
In a word, we are living in a planet full of X factors and
uncertainties. Nature is still a sealed book for us; we have
only caught a glimpse of its cover. What we are going to do
is, reading the book, cautiously.
|
