Many debates about natural resource development and environmental protection are distorted by the 'nature card,' a romanticized vision of the natural world and humanity's place in it. According to the nature card, nature always knows best. Less human activity and more nature is all we need to create a better world.

The problem with the nature card is that nature as it exists today is largely a human production. It is impossible to say where nature ends and humanity begins. Like the 'god' and 'country' cards, the nature card is an easy trump and almost always played unfairly. We will make better decisions about how we impact the natural world if we accept our stewardship role and give up the nature card.

A thousand years ago, in the middle of what is now the United States, a civilization arose that we call Mississippian. The influence of this society extended thousands of miles. Its base was an urban complex near modern-day St. Louis, the population of which has been estimated as at least 25,000 and possibly much more.

After a run of about 500 years, Mississippian society collapsed. The great city was abandoned and in just a few generations, forgotten. What happened? Climate change? War? Plague? Social unrest? One theory is that the enterprise simply exhausted its natural resources. The forests had been stripped and hunted-out, the streams over-fished, the soil over-farmed, the air and water polluted. People drifted away and adopted different, smaller-scale survival strategies. Urbanization on this continent would not be attempted again until several centuries later, this time by European immigrants.

There is a popular belief throughout the developed world that aboriginal people are instinctive environmentalists, living in perfect harmony with nature, in contrast to modern technological humans who are at war with nature. We admire the aboriginal environmentalists and hate ourselves. We want to believe humans are capable of living in nature without harming it and with a little more compassion we could return to that more perfect state. This is a fantasy, but it is a key element of the 'nature card.' The reality is that human beings, since the beginning, have exploited nature to the limit of their technology, as the Mississippians did and as we do now.

The trick, then as now, is to harvest as many gold eggs as possible while keeping the goose healthy and happy. The Mississippians succeeded for 500 years. Nothing has changed since their day except that now the game is global, the stakes absolute.

If by "nature" we mean those systems neither created nor controlled by humans, then there is precious little of it left to worry about. Humanity hasn't had much impact on geologic forces, such as earthquakes and volcanoes, but our fingerprints are on almost everything else. From climate change to genetic modification, little of the natural world remains untouched by human activity. What began as a competition has become a collaboration, a merger. Nature as it exists today is largely a human production. It is impossible to say where nature ends and humanity begins. Nature as an entity entirely separate from and dominant over human activity is dead.

Yet unblemished nature persists as an idea. We know what it looks like: a sparkling waterfall in an alpine forest, a meadow of blooming wildflowers, great masses of wildebeest crossing a savannah, or caribou crossing a tundra. That's nature. We like nature. Nature is good!

The nature card capitalizes on this emotional appeal. Butterflies are pretty. Thunderstorms are impressive. Fresh air smells nice. Clean water tastes good. Nature is pleasurable and that is not a frivolous consideration. Humans need pleasure. Beauty may be a valid reason for protecting something, but is that nature?

Every environmental advocacy group plays the nature card. "Save the Whales" is the bumper sticker, not "Save the Sucker Fish."

The nature card distorts all debates about natural resource development and environmental protection. Traditional, organic agriculture is okay but "factory farming" is bad. The selective breeding of domesticated animals, as practiced for thousands of years, is fine but genetic modification is not. Mining and drilling are acceptable where they already occur but expansion should be resisted and certain types of landscape should be off limits.

Who are we kidding?

When humans decide what is to be saved and what sacrificed, what is nature's role? Are we protecting nature or just keeping souvenirs to remember it by?

Here in the American Midwest, where I live, prairie restoration is popular. You might think that a prairie can be restored by simply taking land and leaving it alone, but you would be wrong. The 'natural' prairie must be reconstituted by reintroducing some plant species and eradicating others. It takes many years of active management to restore a healthy prairie ecosystem. No doubt there are many good reasons for doing this, but is it nature?

One good reason for restoring ecosystems such as prairies and wetlands is to create more habitat for favored animal species. Duck hunters, for example, have long supported efforts to preserve and expand duck habitat. Now Delta Waterfowl, a leading conservationist group, says that habitat protection and expansion are not enough. They advocate active management (i.e., killing) of duck predators such as foxes, skunks and raccoons. They argue, convincingly, that recent habitat change has favored these small predators so even if the overall habitat area is increased, predator management will still be needed to achieve a 'natural' waterfowl population.

This is how modern humans compete with other predators in the name of nature.

Similar choices are being made all over the world, from the natural gas fields of Amazonian Peru to the fish farms of China. Deciding what is right is not as simple as determining what is best for nature. If nature today is a human production, then no course is more or less natural than any other.

In our sound bite world, 'nature good, humans bad' may be a comforting mantra, but it doesn't get us very far in making good decisions.

This is why we need to give up the nature card. Specifically, we need to give up the idea that humans can live 'in harmony' with the 'natural' world. That world doesn't exist. We are humans and we adapt our environment to suit our needs, we exploit our environment to the limit of our technology. This is what humans are, this is what humans do.

If human-nature harmony is a fantasy, then what is the correct description of our relationship to nature? The concept is unfashionable, but "stewardship" is the right word. Like it or not, we humans are stewards of the earth. It is only through responsible stewardship that we will always be able to have our nature and eat it too.

The concept of "stewardship" doesn't pit humanity against nature, it positions humanity as caretaker of nature, a role we accepted a long time ago. We just haven't acknowledged it. It's long past time that we did.

The problem with the current situation it that the 'nature' card, like the 'god' and 'country' cards, is an easy trump and almost always played unfairly to the detriment of productive dialogue. Both sides are arguing for policies that will impact nature for the benefit of humanity. Everything we do interacts with natural forces, sometimes with unforeseen consequences.

Our stewardship of the planet will never be perfect. Despite our best efforts to make good decisions, we will make mistakes. Despite the best efforts of the rest of us to stop them, some people will lie, cheat and steal. Some people will put parochial interests ahead of global ones. People in desperate circumstances will take intemperate actions. These are human problems and we have to confront them. "Nature" doesn't have an answer.

The battle is not between humanity and nature. It is between different segments of humanity and how they value different things about nature. In every case the standards are human standards. These are contests between conflicting human interests. We have to mediate them through human institutions like governments and the marketplace. Greater democratization and transparency should lead to better decisions. In every case the question must be which course will provide the highest standard of living for the greatest number of people, now and in the future, not which is the most natural.