This was my entry in the Economist essay competition 2003.
To even ask "do we need nature?" implies that we are not part of nature, or at least that we occupy some peculiarly lofty tier which could probably manage without the rest. Indeed, the accepted wisdom in the West in the mid-nineteenth century was just that: nature was constructed for our benefit, to do with as we wish.
When Thomas Huxley published "Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature" in 1863, it looked like the evolutionary argument was a winning one. A fierce supporter of Charles Darwin's theories, Huxley was not similarly afraid to stress the implications of them for mankind. New evidence clearly showed that Man was not special, not detached from nature; he was descended from apes and therefore was an animal. Those opposed to an establishment controlled by the church took heart: it was fitness, not favour, that mattered. Survival of the fittest - competition and free markets would eventually follow.
But, a century or so later, we seem to be regaining our supernatural status. For some, humans have out-evolved all other life on Earth by so much that it doesn't matter where we came from. What matters is where we are going, what we can achieve, how far the human race (or at least some of it) can progress. For a few, we can and should do whatever we see fit to maintain the march of progress: even if that means destroying nature; even if that means transcending our own natures and becoming artificial beings ourselves.
Both positions are extreme, and should be seen for what they are - political tools. Huxley was an agnostic (he coined the term) and therefore sought to overthrow the establishment view, not for philosophical reasons, but to promote his own vision of a more meritocratic society for the new "men of science". The modern supernatural position is driven mostly by businessmen fighting to promote new products and reduce their costs, supported by a new breed of scientists motivated more by the need to pursue funding than by their own vision.
At the start of the 21st century, businesses are fighting for the man-made over the natural on two fronts. Firstly to convince a large number of sceptical consumers that high-tech man-made products (e.g. GM crops) are better than low-tech natural ones, or at least not dangerous. And secondly to avoid picking up the costs of environmental protection and the obstacles of conservation.
Both battles are unwinnable in the short term.
From a consumer's point of view, old versus new is a lifestyle choice, as long as the product is benign. But, try and market something new which used to be "natural" (e.g. food) and you get something "unnatural". That worries people, especially in countries which have experienced food scares due "only" to bad practice, let alone engineering they can't understand. No-one wants to be a guinea pig for new technology which might prove harmful in the long term: "There is currently no evidence..." doesn't wash anymore.
Environment and conservation are losing issues for business today. Everyone wants a nice clean environment, with wild plants and animals preserved for future generations, but no-one wants to pay for it. It is almost always cheaper to make something or go somewhere if you don't have to worry about the surrounding environment and its occupants. In a competitive world it is just too expensive to care any more than the current regulations force you to. But bad publicity and local incremental tightening of regulations will almost certainly mean that businesses will have to pick up the tab first.
At the end of the nineteenth century, many people found the idea of humans evolving from apes abhorrent. It is an argument which has continued to the present day, with a significant number of people still not accepting it. So, present fears about technology which "tampers with nature" and the increasing interest in conservation could prove to be just as long lasting, or even more so.
Here lies the problem for (short-term dominated) technologists. Nature is a long-term bet. Do I need nature right now? Not really; I'm quite comfortable in my nice warm man-made office thank you. But on the way home, tonight, tomorrow, next week, next year, when my children are grown up? You bet I need nature. What is the best known source of tried and tested compounds, machines and strategies? Nature. And what about beauty, inspiration and tranquillity? All more abundant in nature.
Nature has such a huge emotional impact on people, on many levels. At one extreme, nature is awesomely powerful and puts man's puny abilities into humbling perspective - e.g. earthquakes, tornados, floods. But at the other extreme, nature has a delicate beauty and fragile balance that could be upset by humans, causing irreparable damage.
It is perhaps a greater awareness of the potential damage, rather than gross ignorance, which is driving the scepticism that many people have towards new "unnatural" technologies. Similarly with conservation: most of the people who support preservation schemes do so, not out of sentimentality, but in the knowledge that natural "resources" once lost cannot be recovered.
The complexity of the world, and all the interactions it encompasses, makes it impossible to predict the long-term effects of actions which alter nature or impact on the environment and other species. It is therefore in all of our interests to proceed cautiously, or not at all. The general public is now better informed than ever before: they will ultimately vote, either democratically or with their wallets, for what seems sensible to them.
Technologists should not try to write off people's concerns as primitive and irrational. Raising mankind above nature, giving him god-like power, isn't a winning strategy. Working within nature, using natural resources sensitively and sustainably, is both appealing and pragmatic - nature has been around for a long time and has evolved solutions to problems we haven't even noticed yet.