Human Nature: A Blueprint for Managing the Earth--by People, for People

by James S. Trefil

"Uncommon and refreshing. Moreover, Trefil is right."
-Michael Ruse, The New York Times Book Review

As a prizewinning theoretical physicist and bestselling author, James Trefil has long been the public's guide to a better understanding of the world. Now, in this provocative and engaging book, Trefil looks squarely at our environmental future and finds-contrary to popular wisdom-reason to celebrate.

For too long, Trefil argues, humans have treated nature as something separate from themselves-pristine wilderness to be saved or material resources to be exploited. What we need instead is a scientific approach to the environment. In Human Nature , Trefil exposes the benefits of genetically modified species, uncovers vital facts about droughts and global warming, and shows why putting humans first is the best path ahead. By taking advantage of explosive advances in the sciences, we can fruitfully manage the planet, if we rise to the challenge.

Human Nature promises to awaken a new state of environmentalism and our relationship to the planet-and is filled with optimism, rather than alarm.

272 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

James S. Trefil (born 9/10/1938) is an American physicist (Ph.D. in Physics at Stanford University in 1966) and author of more than thirty books. Much of his published work focuses on science for the general audience. Dr. Trefil has previously served as Professor of Physics at the University of Virginia and he now teaches as Robinson Professor of Physics at George Mason University. Among Trefil's books is Are We Unique?, an argument for human uniqueness in which he questions the comparisons between human intelligence and artificial intelligence. Trefil also regularly gives presentations to judges and public officials about the intersections between science and the law.

Reviews

[Dennis Littrell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Planetary management issues engagingly presented and argued

The main title of this book, "Human Nature" is a bit misleading. What physics professor and scientific generalist James Trefil is really talking about is humans and nature, as he says in the Preface, and how to manage the planet (as in the subtitle). Trefil has a "benefits-to-humans" principle to guide us:

"The global ecosystem should be managed for the benefit, broadly conceived, of human beings." (p. 13 and p. 218)

Note well the qualification "broadly conceived." Trefil allows that benefits to humans might include "some sort of innate human attraction to complex natural ecosystems" and that we might "prefer scenery that contains both water and a variety of plants and animals." (pp. 214-215) However he goes on to say that his first reaction to "the heat, humidity, and discomfort" of a rainforest is to ask, "Why would anyone want to preserve THIS?"

Why indeed?

Well, because it's there. Because it's beautiful...etc. Trefil appreciates this answer but assigns a higher value to human utility than to human aesthetics. To be fair, however, his vision of a managed earth includes "both cities and wilderness areas." (p. 226)

Nonetheless this book will offend environmentalists because of its industry-friendly tone (e.g., Part II is entitled "The Myths of Pop Ecology") and because Trefil occupies a middle ground between the extremes of a paved earth and a wilderness earth, and also because he assigns such a high value to human life as opposed to the lives of other creatures.

Okay, to some specifics. His idea of the symbolic meaning of the Garden of Eden as a falling from grace is the standard model from Christianity; however a broader view sees it as the symbolic expression of the birth of human consciousness. We were "innocent" and then suddenly we saw that we were "naked." We became "conscious"--especially of our animal nature.

More important than this difference of interpretation is his idea that we have taken ourselves out...of the process of natural selection--and [have] become something unique in the history of our planet. (p. 39)

Clearly we are unique on this planet. However to imagine that we have somehow stepped out of the process of natural selection is presumptuous. Our culture--as amazing as it is--is nonetheless itself a product of natural selection. It cannot negate natural selection except in a purely local way. To appreciate this imagine that we have established colonies on the moon and Mars. Suppose then that the earth suffers some horrific "sterilizing" catastrophe, such as being hit by a gigantic meteor. The colonies on the moon and Mars will survive but earth-bound humans will probably go the way of the dinosaurs.

This is natural selection at work. Beings with the ability to occupy niches away from planet earth will be selected in such natural events (including the microbes in and on their bodies) as opposed to those beings who lack such an ability. To make this even clearer, imagine the inhabitants of a similar solar system light years away who cannot for whatever reason leave their home planet. If all life on that planet is destroyed those beings are extinct. Again, this is natural selection at work. We survived. They didn't. Extraterrestrial events are part of the environment that does the "selecting."

It is not surprising that Trefil wants to make a distinction between "natural" and human. But this distinction is artificial. The title of his third chapter, "Leaving Nature Behind" reflects this distinction. But it is a false distinction--useful yes, but ultimately untrue. We cannot leave nature behind. We are part of nature. Cultural evolution is a subset of biological evolution in a way similar to the way number theory is a subset of mathematics, or that English is a subset of human languages.

There are also some fuzzy conclusions. On page 62 in his zest to go after some "myths" from "pop ecology" he points to what he calls "The poisoned planet myth" and then backs off a little by saying "it's partly true and partly false." And then he decides that "it's a clear example of the sin-and-retribution theme associated with Noah's flood."

Well, it's not a "myth" if it's partly true; and his attempt at guilt by association is an example of the sort of logic condemned in undergraduate philosophy classes.

Another example is from page 143 where Trefil is discussing global warming. He writes, "If the warming is due to global trends beyond our control, then all we can do is think about adapting to higher temperatures." If something is "beyond our control" then we can, by definition, do nothing about it, and his statement is a gratuitous tautology. But what Trefil really means here is that if the warming is caused by nature, as opposed to being caused by humans (as he notes in the next sentence), we can only think cool thoughts. Actually even warming caused by events beyond human control can in fact be mitigated, as Trefil points out elsewhere in the book.

Regardless of its faults this is among the very best science books I have read over the last three or four years. It is just so interesting that the pages practically turn themselves. I think Trefil is able to engage the reader partly because his take on a number of controversial scientific questions is original and surprising, candid and calm, and because he argues his case so very well without giving in to politically-correct notions. In particular his discussion of "The Question of Extinction" (Chapter 8) is informed and convincingly presented. I also found his concluding chapters on "...Choices" and "The Managed Planet" fascinating.

Trefil's engaging style allows the reader to enter into a dialogue as he reads and to feel that both sides of an issue are being presented fairly. This is a rare and radiant talent for any writer, but especially for a writer of books on difficult and controversial subjects.

--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”

[Frank Pond · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good in theory...