Humans and geography

Foresight and imagination – the ability to anticipate and plan for the consequences of actions and processes – combined with language to communicate, and the use of tools to labor differentiates us from animals.
Harmony and Competition
Humanity’s labor has created society and culture. But the relationship of humans to nature, and the connection between the natural world and human society is an area of great controversy. The great socialist thinkers of the 19th century, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, developed many of their ideas and theories from a study of the natural world and its relationship with human society.
They were alive at the time of the debates and controversies around the theories of Charles Darwin on evolution and the important arguments about what the ‘natural world’ could tell us about human society. Many of these debates are just as fierce today, with hundreds of books written about ‘human nature’ and its relationship with the natural world.
On one side, stand the ‘Romantics’ – those who see nature as a kind of unchanging and harmonious system. Romantic ideas usually represent a reaction against the horrors of modern capitalist industry and particularly what is seen as the disastrous intervention of humankind. They often argue for a return to a ‘simpler’ and ‘more harmonious’ life (see Chapter 4). Perhaps the best-known expression of this is in Hollywood’s interpretation of Mary Shelley’s book Frankenstein, which often argues against ‘mad scientists’ ‘interfering in nature’ for fear of creating monsters – technology, science, etc. – that get out of control.
Often, such ideas argue that humans themselves are the problem – as though we are inherently morally evil, while the rest of nature is inherently good. But humans are not the only animals who alter or destroy nature. Anyone who has ever sat down with young children to watch a nature documentary on the TV and then had to explain why ‘the nasty fox is ripping the poor bunny to shreds’ or the lion is killing the zebras, will know that the romantic idea of Paradise or natural harmony is a myth.
On the other side, and in response to these Romantic myths, many modern philosophers and scientists have argued instead that nature represents “the war of all against all”, i.e. that there is a natural kind of war taking place between all species and their environments. They say that nature is “red in tooth and claw”. This argument ignores the many areas of inter-dependence in nature. Many flowers depend on insects to reproduce and the insects live on the flowers’ nectar. Each needs the other. Many roots have close relationships with fungus, the fungus breaks down materials to provide the plants with nutrients and the plant in turn provides nutrients and energy to the fungus. Without the hidden fungus many types of trees would not exist. There are many more examples of such close intertwined relations. Often because they are less visible than lions and foxes, they are ignored. Life on earth depends on the interrelationship of species. Neither the ideas of natural harmony, nor those of natural competition fully tell the truth about the natural world. Karl Marx, in particular, argued against both over-simplifications. The natural world combines elements of both competition and co-operation: one could not exist without the other.
Human Nature?
It is, though, no accident that ideas that emphasize conflict have arisen in a society based on competition, disharmony and war between nations and classes. Many of the people who claim that nature is competitive and aggressive use that to argue for right-wing political ideas. If humans, like all other animals, are naturally aggressive, then the way society is now is natural. Desmond Morris, author of The Naked Ape and other books, and other biological determinists and social Darwinists are some of the most reactionary people around today. They justify war and inequalities based on race, sex and class, as natural differences. In the most modern example of biological determinism, the relatively new science of genetics is being used by many right-wing ideologists to attempt to explain that differences between people are “inherited through their genes” and there is very little they can do about it. Instead of examining the relationship between genetics and environmental factors which influence people’s character and behavior, they argue that to attempt to change things would be un-natural, and socialism would be against ‘human nature’.
What they see as nature tells us more about their outlook than about nature. They look at nature through the spectacles of today’s society. As well as being reactionary, it is bad science. There is nothing in common between an animal killing its prey and dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. To call them both aggression is false and misleading.
Competition is only one part of nature, co-operation is at least as important. Darwin’s ‘theory of evolution’ was a brilliant scientific innovation. He talked of the fitness of species to their environment. This describes how a species is best fitted – or suited – to its specific environment. It does not, as is often said, mean the fittest, in the sense of the strongest or most aggressive. Neither does it mean, in a common distortion of Darwin’s ideas applied to human society, that ‘fit’ bullies killing everyone is justified as ‘natural’.
Neither is ‘human nature’ fixed. The way humans react with their environment and with other humans is dependent on, and changes with, different cultures and circumstances. There are of course basic ideological necessities or limits, such as food, oxygen, reproduction, and death. But the most important feature of human nature is its variability, adaptability and enormous potential.
Bodies and Store-Cupboards
Marx and Engels saw humans and nature as inextricably linked. Engels wrote:
“… we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature – but … we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst … all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly. And, in fact, with every day that passes we are acquiring a better understanding of these laws and getting to perceive both the more immediate and the more remote consequences of our interference with the traditional course of nature.”