Society and nature are a certain symbiosis, and society nevertheless has a parasitic role, because initially man came to everything ready. Nature is many billions of years older than even the most ancient progenitor of man. Miraculously debugged, the system of interaction of living beings did not want rude interference from a rational subject.
Initially, like all living things, man is part of nature. But at a certain stage he distinguished himself from her. Did this not happen when he picked up a stick in order to get his livelihood? But monkeys also use simple tools, due to the structure of limbs and the beginnings of thinking, but it cannot be said that they modify nature. Apparently, an ancient man once acted like this. Whereas ordinary monkeys are a dead end branch, so you should not expect that someday a new species of Homo Sapiens will appear in the same way. The current primates in the eyes of man are also only part of the natural environment.
In general, there are two aspects to nature. In a broad sense, it is a philosophical phenomenon, the essence of something. The narrow concept of nature defines it and all the processes taking place in it as a natural environment. Whether the wind blows, whether it rains, whether the plant blooms, whether the cub of the animal is born - all these are natural phenomena, both living and non-living. When the question arises of the relationship "society and nature", it is understood in the narrow sense
Contrasting himself with it, man thus as if denies his biological essence. Perhaps this is the rational. Animals act in obedience to instincts, while a member of a civilized society cannot afford such a "luxury." There is an authoritative opinion that, by suppressing natural desires, a person acquires neurosis and other mental disorders. Many immoral acts are explained by the call of nature. So how much has man really separated from nature? Does he have the right to oppose himself to the natural environment? Society has taken too much upon itself in relation to nature, forgetting how it depends on it.
The capacious phrase “Nature is not a temple, but a workshop” reflects the consumer relationship of mankind to the natural environment. Society and nature can coexist harmoniously only if there is a rethinking of values at the level of both the whole society and each person. At the global level, air and water pollution occurs, the destruction of a huge number of animals, the depletion of resources. At the specific person level, these are landfills in the forest after picnics, waste dumping into rivers and lakes, and prohibited hunting.
Someone will object that society brings benefit to nature. Rare species of animals and plants listed in the Red Book are carefully protected from extinction; dry and old trees are cut down to give life to the young; the whales are ashore. But is this really such a help? Firstly, many problems are caused precisely by human activities, and secondly, nature itself knows how it will be better for it, since it has reason (not in the usual sense for a person, but in a different, intuitive). Naturally, without human intervention, new species of living organisms died out and appeared, the number of animals was regulated, natural selection left strong and healthy individuals. Society and nature can never harmonize as perfectly as nature itself is perfect.
Civilization does not stand still, development is proceeding at a tremendous pace. It is difficult to say what awaits humanity in the coming centuries and even decades. If we assume the most optimistic version, that a global catastrophe will bypass the Earth, that people will change their minds and stop destroying the surrounding world, there will be problems of a different plan. Residents of large cities are moving away from their natural habitat. They buy country houses and rest behind high fences. They get out into the woods and go fishing, but get there and back by car. Gradually, nature in a person’s life will become just a decoration, like a 3D movie or a computer game.
