I agree with Lloyd J, I would like to add that if there is a purpose for nature at all, then we don't know it, at least not yet.
Quotes by Sagebrush (a self proclaimed Christian and ardent AGW denier) :
"Execute all those who voted for OBAMA"
"Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch!"
While the fact that anyone would seriously ask this question bothers me, you actually do have to answer it. The reality is that it is this very question that makes "the environment" seem like a normative (and thus moral/political/ethical) issue instead of a "real" one. I completely understand that you wouldn't have a clue where to start when posed with this question, but luckily there is a huge discourse out there trying to answer it.
The question is not existential. What it's actually asking is "What is the economic value of nature?"
Scientists of all fields - biological, economic, social, political - have been trying really hard to give a simple, quantitative answer to this question. If only the value of nature could be put into an equation that could be tracked with bottom-line monetary values, then no one would argue about its importance.
The closest we've come so far is the concept of "ecosystem services," which tries to categorize what 'nature' does for people. Water purification (like the Adirondacks for New York), buffers for flooding (like mangrove forests in southeast Asia), and sources for new medicines (the biological diversity of the rainforest) are some examples of economic value that nature provides.
I can't not say, though, that the question itself - "What is the purpose of nature?" is literally asking "What is the purpose of the existence of everything?" But I'll leave my complaining at that.
Nature has no purpose; it has no goal.
If we could go back 65 million years and run the experiment again - this time without a big rock to kill the dinosaurs - there is no reason to believe, much less any certainty, that humans would have evolved. 65 million years ago the only mammals were little fur balls trying to steal some dinosaur eggs without getting stepped on. If dinosaurs had not become extinct, our ancestors might have.
Only a sentient being can have a "purpose". As far as I know nature is not even conscious, much less sentient. We are certainly in nature and a part of nature. We are possibly the first beings to exist that can actually change and direct nature if we wanted to.
No other details? References?
In truth, what we call "nature", has no attributable purpose. It exists despite us, and outside of everything that we are. If anything, we humans, being somewhat outside the 'natural system', are the deviant quotient of the whole, very complex, equation of natural systems that compose "Nature".
Nature is composed of all the natural cycles, rhythms, and processes involving geology, the sun, weather/climate, and plants and animals, all interacting with or affecting one another on multiple physical and energy levels.
Kinda tough to answer that broad question.
Nature is the opposite of humans. Nature is anything good & natural, while humans represent everything evil & bad, man-made, un-natural. Never have the two been so opposed since the advent of religion; the 3 major monotheistic religions all state cut down all the trees, kill all the animals. It doesn't, but that's the way it's always interpreted. The purpose of nature is simply to exist; it is not enough for humans to just exist, they cannot live & let live, they must always be imposing themselves on others. It is impossible for animals to be evil, same for trees. It is impossible for humans to be anything but imperfect. Animals are perfect; so are trees. Both are constantly being disrespected by people. Humans will destroy everything until one day there won't be anything left but rats & roaches. We cannot live without nature, but nature can live without us.
Purpose
a : something set up as an object or end to be attained : intention b : resolution, determination
2: a subject under discussion or an action in course of execution
Nature (best definition selectected)
2a : a creative and controlling force in the universe b : an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual
or
the external world in its entirety
So it appears you are asking the end to be attained on the controlling force of the universe or the external world in its entirety
There is no intended end to be attained. It simply exists. Humans have intentions. Nature doesn't.
do you go to a christian school?
only a religious person would question what the purpose of nature is.
Nature has no purpose.
We don't have a natural crises. We have a credibility crises.
Quote by Tom McElmurry, meteorologist, former tornado forecaster in Severe Weather Service: “Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat hole to solve a problem which doesn’t exist....Packs of rats wait in that [rat] hole to reap trillions coming down it to fill advocates pockets....The money we are about to spend on drastically reducing carbon dioxide will line the pockets of the environmentalists....some politicians are standing in line to fill their pockets with kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts....In case you haven’t noticed, it is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the horror warnings by government officials and former vice-presidents.”
The purpose of nature has been set forth by our heavenly creator and that is to sustain life on earth. Hasn't he done a wonderful job so far?
Gave us oxygen to breath
I did a reading on our ecological crisis we have today and I have to answer this question after the reading, but I don't know where to start. Please help
To survive.
