Analysis of the Nature and Culture Division

The advances in the registering of nature in wrong of scientific cognition has been tremendous especially since the mid-1950s with the discovery of the DNA structure, which precipitated more(prenominal) advances in molecular biology, genetics, and biochemistry. However, in the end of the 20th century until now, our modern society has seen more and more digs about how nature has been altered and/or destroyed by our progress in technology, in particular biotechnology.Yet, one may wonder if the debate over technological progress postulateing nature or more specifically, natural laws that govern our existence, does reflect a pagan bias in the ecumenic comprehension of technological progress in our society. Consequently, three questions may be asked to completely analyze the problem. First, is there a nature/culture problem to be discussed? Second, if there is, how has it affected our worldwide society with respect to a cultural substitute caused by particular developments in ac quaintance and technology and when? If there is a global effect, is there a tangible effect on our personal life? This paper go out deal with each of these questions.The amazing characteristics that hu bits possess, is to retard from previous generations, to improve upon their work, and to establish a momentum to human life and culture that has taken our civilization from cave art to quantum physics, and into the space age. In addition, otherwise scientific advances bring about technological progress in our direct environment and society, more so than being in space. Even more so has biotechnology been altering the nature of our humanity, not only in terms of programmed physical changes based on scientific discoveries, but also in terms of environmental changes.Unfortunately, peoples understanding of what science is capable of either to benefit our society or destroy it, has been undermined since the Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century. How do we know that? Simply con sider the history of our society until now with the debate over cloning and stem-cell research that have come under eject in our western part of the foundation. In both cases, a further variableness has taken place within the world scientific community. Some countries entrust the research whereas others do not. Consequently, what keep we draw from this chiasm, is it due to a cultural difference? If it is, then do we really understand what the meaning of culture is? If we do, can we reconcile differences?Raymond Williams tells us that there is a great difficulty in even defining the concept of culture. (Williams, ) Is it a division of the whole into parts (the individual) homogeneous Latour claims or a whole global entity like Tarde thinks? (Latour, Social in Question) Furthermore, Williams is not even sure himself of what nature really means. On page 78, he does tell us that there is a general confusion or disparity of what different people mean by nature. Is it either the nat ure of man (biology), the natural nature of our environment, or both? Latour seems to agree with Williams that there is a problem of defining the context of nature and culture. Latour uses the illustration of one simple payoff like using an aerosol can after which people be taken on a journey to Antarctica, to touring scientific labs across the world, and the chemistry of hibernating(a) gases. (p. 2 Crisis) (Latour, )This implies that the complexity of the division is based not only on the science of the natural environment, but also first on how people are affected by the effects of the ozone problem, and second how different people or the world as a single cultural phenomenon perceive the problem. The conclusion is that the division exists but its very existence is very confusing to any person from any part of the world or the whole world, perhaps minus the scientists. Rabinows expose supports this idea of confusion when she claims using Michel Foucaults and Gilles Deleuzes arg uments that there has been a shift caused by this division, particularly on how we as a species insure ourselves and our environment. Specifically, on p. 91, she statesIn the modern form, finitude establishes a field of life, labor, and languagewithin which Man appears as a distinctive being who is both the substance and object of his own understanding, but an understanding that is never complete because of its very structure. (Rabinow, )Toxen is convinced that this magnitude of this shift has actually been more like a regeneration with respect to science and technology in our society. (Toxen, 1983) On p.1, he emphasizes that there is a total reshaping of industries, companies, universities, and laboratories to sustain the present mode of production. He adds that the cause of this shift seems to be linked to a push for biotechnological advances, especially in our time (he wrote this article in 1983).So, how do this shift and the nature/culture division affect our own existence? C allon speaks of auto engineers in France becoming sociologists in order to manufacture the first electric car. As a consequence, engineers define what society will be like and how it will be changed because of the introduction of such a new mode of transportation. Their resulting conclusions motivate their work while reshaping our ideas or shall we say our cultural acceptance. (Callon, ) In the same vein, biotechnology has been hailed as the only way to remedy problems that our society faces. For example, Lappe and Collins cite the example of how biotechnology is supposed to solve world hunger but people are starving more than ever. (Lappe-Collins, )An illustration of this idea is cited by Pollan with Monsanto genetically engineering a bug-killer potato that may be hazardous to our health so we would not be able to eat it anyway (Pollan, ). In the context of ecology, Schwartz and Thompson speak of Nature benign gives us global equilibrium. (Schwartz, Thompson, 1990) This idea implie s that science and technology cannot help the way that is propounded. The reason is simple there is not enough comprehension of us as individuals and as a civilization (culture) to solve the mostly self-inflicted obstacles encountered with our nature as a species as well as our environment (nature).In conclusion, there is a real doubt whether science and technology can help our society. Since there is a fuzzy picture of how we understand the division between culture and nature, science and technology cannot claim that they understand what shapes our society for the better while they certainly do not understand how they can shape society for the worst.ReferencesCallon, ?. (Year?). Engineers as sociologists. Publication? 210- 216.Lappe, ?, Collins, ?. (Year?). World hunger cardinal myths. Publication? 48-66.Latour, B. Joyce, P. (editor). (Year?). The social in question. New bearings on history and the Social Sciences. London Routledge. (year?). Crisis. Publication? 2-12.Pollan, M. (d ate and year?). Playing God in my garden. The New York Times. 1-12.Rabinow, P. (Year?) Artificiality and understanding from sociobiology to biosociality. Publication? 91-110.Schwartz, M., Thompson, M. (1990). Divided we stand redefining politics, technology, and social choice. London Harvester & Wheatsheaf.Toxen, L. (1983). The life industry in gene business who should control biotechnology? London railroad tie Books.Williams, R. (Year?). Title? Publication? 68-84.