Are We Above Nature?

So the other day, I came across a debate on-line regarding "live-feeding". Live feeding, usually applied to snakes and carnivorous pets, is when one feeds live prey to their pet. This could be a rabbit, a mouse, a rat, chickens, hamsters, guinea pigs...even...Goats?!?

This conversation I came across involves live snake feeding. 
Animal lovers alike flung insults across the net. Those who did not support it cried animal cruelty. Those who did argued that their pets did not eat dead prey (that's debatable, since I've seen my friend's snake eat dead prey. But, eh, what do I know?) and, let's face it, they aren't about to turn vegan either. One comment, however, struck me SMACK in the face and left a mark on it...  

Here's how it goes: 
"We humans are above nature! We determine who lives and who dies!"
This comment chilled me to the bones. To say the least.


We're above nature? Really?

To me, to say that implies a few things...

• We are in total control of Nature
• Nature can't hurt us
• Nature needs us
• We don't need nature

We are in Total Control of Nature
Do I need to say anything to prove that wrong? Hopefully not. If we were in control of nature, we wouldn't need to abide by its laws. Laws such as, Winter comes after fall, that comes after summer, that comes after spring and the cycle begins again. 
Or that when you build a dam over a river, your fish stock will be affected and you may have less fish to eat. 
When you over fish, then you can't have more fish in the next year. 
If you plant a seed in winter, it probably won't grow.
If you cut down a forest, it will take longer than you live to grow back, if it does at all.
And most of all. The central dogma of nature:
FOR EVERY ACTION, THERE IS A REACTION. 

You take one fish and eat it, there will be less fish next year, but still more than enough. You take a tonne of fish, then the reaction is larger and there may be not enough fish to spawn successfully next year. Other species that feed on that fish species may starve because of the lack of fish. Eagles that eat the fish that eat that fish that you fished will also be affected because their food is dying. 

You can only live by the laws of nature, or suffer the consequences, such as death. That doesn't sound like control to me. 

 
Nature Can't Hurt Us
Oh really? 

Nope! Can't hurt us at all! ^w^

I'm skeptical...



















Nature Needs Us; We Don't Need Nature
Some smart cookie will look at this and say, "But this is a paradox unto itself!"

And, because I want to be a smart cookie too, I would agree with them. Why would I?


Can we argue we are a part of Nature?


We evolved from Nature, we depend on what Nature gives us. The food, the clothes we wear, every last bit of material in your room, the computer screen you are reading off from, the books you read, the pen you write with... everything came from Nature. The minerals from its grounds fuel our lives (*cough* oil); the food it produces fuels our bodies...


There is no doubt about it. We NEED nature!
On the other hand, how much does Nature need us? 
I'm not even talking about the amount of damage we had supposedly done to it. Global warming, destruction of rainforests and pollution of waterways... 


The Earth has seen (and survived) more than we could ever damage (before we kill ourselves). It's that the Earth, 6 million years ago, had never seen the footprint of man. And (according to studies), the Earth is at least 4 billion years old. Of course, life didn't pop up for another half a billion year. But during these times, the Earth saw 5 major mass extinctions (the most recent of which is the famed death of the dinosaurs). Not to mention ice ages, changes in the composition of the atmosphere, splitting of the continents ... humans? How much of a threat are we?

Nature certainly does not depend on humans, nor does it almost any single species. 

So are we above nature? Can we control it in anyway? Can we dominate it? 
Like my biology professor LOVED to put it... You tell me!