Ge Lixiong
If "reverence for nature" is understood as respecting nature and conforming to nature, it is undoubtedly the right attitude, and I fully agree with it. However, if we confuse "reverence for nature" with the ignorant nature worship of some people in the past, and therefore believe that human beings should blindly obey and do nothing in the face of nature, then we have gone to the other extreme, and it is difficult for not only human beings to be blessed, but also those who hold such a view.
The use of fire, the invention of tools, cultivated agriculture, settlement, and urbanization have all destroyed a large number of other organisms and dramatically altered the natural environment in some areas. Without these advances, there would be no humanity today, and there would be no current debate. These advances cannot simply be described as the result of the "conquest of nature" or merely the product of "awe", but they are the real footprints of humanity. In the foreseeable future, will humanity be able to abandon these advances and revert to the age of barbarism? I am afraid that the most extreme environmentalists or nature centers will not be willing or able to choose.
The root cause of all kinds of abnormal changes on the earth, including various disasters in recent years, is still in nature itself, and in the vast majority of cases, human activities have only exacerbated the changes in nature.
Many disasters have occurred when human beings have not had a generation, or no influence at all. Natural disasters known to cause the greatest human losses, such as earthquakes, floods, infectious diseases, etc., do not occur after industry, and there is no pattern of getting worse. The greatest difficulty is that humanity still does not know the mother's temperament and the real reason for her anger.
In the face of nature, human beings are not lacking in awe, but mothers may not appreciate it. In the Qing Dynasty, in order to ask for the blessing of the river god, he once sent a special envoy to find the source of the Yellow River thousands of miles in order to show his devotion to the river god, but the Yellow River did not flow peacefully.
Some ethnic groups worship mountains beyond measure, and do not dare to touch every grass and tree on the "sacred mountain", and mudslides, landslides, soil erosion, and avalanches still occur. How many times have humans sacrificed their lives to their feared gods, and what has been the result?
I am not advocating that human beings can do whatever they want, but I want to explain that the premise of conforming to nature is to explore the mysteries of nature and grasp the laws of natural change, which requires not only correct concepts, but also science and technology.
While it is theoretically nobler and more perfect to advocate a centering of nature or ecology, there are currently insurmountable obstacles – who can represent nature or ecology? Who else but humans? How can living or non-living things express their wills (if they exist)? Are ethics, morals, and laws that are only suitable for human beings equally applicable to nature or ecology? Can certain environmentalists and ecoethicists represent nature or ecology?
We also have to face the harsh reality of how many people on this planet are struggling on the brink of death, and how many people have not yet solved the problem of food and clothing.
Even in China, tens of millions of people have not yet been lifted out of poverty, and most people are barely well-off. At this stage, people-centred and human-centred approach is not only quite realistic, but also more in line with the humanitarian spirit. People-oriented, not to care for nature, let alone to advocate "conquering nature".
Even if it is in the interests of human beings themselves, it is necessary to protect the environment and conform to nature. But human life, human dignity comes first, and when human beings conflict with the interests of other living or non-living things, we can only consider human beings first. Only in this way will it be possible for us to move towards a higher idea.