What is NatureIsNotAToy?

So while hitting Random Trope I was taken to Nature Is Not a Toy, a page which... confuses me.

• The image is of the Chernobyl disaster, but the description makes no note of whether or not Nuclear Energy counts. OTOH...
• The description is vague and rambly anyway and doesn't actually describe what sort of nature it's talking about. This means that...
• The examples are all over the place, some being DNA splicing, some being the use of radiation as shown in the picture, some being sound waves, and the real life examples just sort of talking about animals and generic shit.

So what is the actual point of the trope? How broad is it supposed to be and does it need action beyond the trope description cleanup drive?

The vibes I'm getting are "Familiarity Breeds Contempt, Contempt Breeds Disaster (By way of carelessness)".

I'm reading it as the level-headed secular version of "science goes wrong when humans try to play god", where "playing god" is spelled out as "hubristically overlooking that humans are subject to physics".

Or "your scientists managers were so busy finding out whether they could, they didn't stop to think about whether they should establishing and maintaining reasonable safety precautions."

If the definition and examples are unclear, this sounds like a possible job for TRS.

Apparently it only launched in 2019, if that information is relevant at all. (Incidentally Jay, you apparently commented on the draft.)

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 7th 2022 at 10:54:08 AM

Oh lord, I didn't even remember it being in TLP.

I think I may add this trope to my personal TRS to-do list, assuming no one else wants to claim it first.

I'll probably throw it on Tropes Needing TRS for now.

EDIT: It's on Tropes Needing TRS at least.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 7th 2022 at 11:11:04 AM

Update: I've started a wick check for this.

Alright, I finished the wick check. Here's the totals, copied from the check:

• 7/31 examples, or 22.58%, dealt with forms of science or scientific experiments going wrong (overlapping with Gone Horribly Wrong),
• 9/31 examples, or 29.03%, dealt with forms of nature or nature-based beings fighting back against humanity/manipualation,
• 2/31 examples, or 6.45%, dealt with non-scientific abuse of nature going wrong (also overlapping with Gone Horribly Wrong),
• 3/31 examples, or 9.68%, dealt with general references to the destruction of nature or the environment,
• 2/31 examples, or 6.45%, lacked context or didn't fit the other categories, and
• 8/31 examples, or 25.81%, were unclassifiable.

I think I'll just queue this up as Unclear Description and argue for a disambiguation.

EDIT: It's on the TRS Queue. Almost all the examples overlapped with other tropes, so I proposed a disambiguation.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on May 13th 2023 at 6:14:42 AM

The key distinguishing feature is that the natural thing is not portrayed as inherently bad or good, and both the positive (if used appropriately) and negative (if misused/used foolishly) aspects are emphasized, in fact it also includes examples where the narrative focus in on the positive applications with the potential dangers more in the background ("this trope will only apply if at least the benefits are discussed while the plot explores the consequences, or vice versa"). However the "vice versa" examples, based on the wick check, seem to never actually be used by tropers despite it being in the description. This contrasts with Gone Horribly Wrong which, while it may overlap, can easily be used to portray Science Is Bad and portray even trying to use the natural thing as a tool as inherently bad. Confusingly, the trope description compares it to the more general Science Is Bad despite it clearly being philosophically opposite to Science Is Bad because it argues scientific usages of nature aren't inherently bad and can be good, only the carelessness is bad. So I don't think it should just be disambiguated because there's a clear concept being discussed that differs from the other tropes, it's just that the people adding examples don't seem to be paying attention to it. Maybe have the description reworked to emphasize more the neutrality aspects and the fact that it can also include stories that focus more on the benefits with the consequences being just discussed.

Edited by molokai198 on May 14th 2023 at 8:46:32 AM

So, would that be a TRS job or no?

Well, I'm several months late to this, but as the troper who made the actual thing I'd thought I'd clear up a few things.

In hindsight, the real life examples were admittedly generic and unrelated to the trope itself, so I don't know why I added them but I'm glad someone already removed them.

Regarding the other points War Jay brought up...I don't agree that it's rambly so much as it's meant to emphasize the ultimate point of the trope itself, which as molokai pointed out, is about harnessing any form of naturally occurring phenomenon for any reason whatsoever, for good or ill. This means nuclear energy, DNA splicing, sound waves, etc., etc.; it literally just has to involve something that naturally occurs somewhere within the observable universe.

So yeah it's meant to be pretty broad in that sense, but it's equally important that the work in question goes into the consequences or benefits of whatever it's doing while discussing the opposite of it (in short, if it goes into the consequences, it should discuss the benefits at least) so that it doesn't become some version of People Sit On Chairs. And I was fairly certain that was pretty clear, but if it still needs some description rewrites I'll try to make it clearer.

I'm not certain though who added the Science Is Bad (it might have been me for some reason, but I don't remember), but I'll change that since it can lead to it but is otherwise not a comparision.

All that being said....should we consider this a supertrope to Nature Is Not Nice, or a subtrope of it?

edit: Went ahead and edited the entry on the supertrope index just to be safe, since I think it can be agreed that this one is a subtrope to Nature Is Not Nice

Edited by Angelspawndragon on Dec 16th 2023 at 2:36:01 AM

Tbh I don't even remember making this thread so I can't really speak to whatever headspace I was in at the time. Apparently back then I thought the description rambled on but don't see it much anymore.

It’s all good!

The description kind of needed some work done on it anyway.

I still don't see how this trope can even lead into Science Is Bad, or for that matter Creating Life Is Bad. The whole point of the trope is that nature is a neutral force, that can be used for good or bad things when it is harnessed, it stands in contrast to the Black-and-White Morality nature of tropes like Science Is Bad, Creating Life Is Bad, and conversely Creating Life Is Awesome.

I really think it would be best if the trope is renamed to "Harnessing Nature is Neutral", to both emphasize that it's about harnessing nature rather than just nature as it exists like Nature Is Not Nice, and to emphasize that it's showing both the good and the bad sides. Or at least renamed to "Nature Is Useful". Nature Is Not a Toy is too much a snow clone to Evil Is Not a Toy, and people probably think by comparison with that trope that it's about something that is unambiguously bad to mess with in all cases.

Someone should also do a wick check to see if both drawbacks and benefits are explained one very trope description, the examples I saw tend to lead overwhelmingly towards it being unambiguously bad which is not what the trope means.

^ Because it could involve scientists who don't actually care if what they're doing hurts someone or causes problems in the long run.

Hence why I put in the "potentially", because while it does emphasize that nature itself is indeed a neutral force, that doesn't mean whoever's using it is.

Edit: I'm not sure which examples you mean. The only ones that don't discuss the benefits at all are the first two under Literature. The only one that might need to be cleared up is the Jurassic Park one, but that's because it was initially paired with the Jurassic World film. That many of them are unambiguously bad follows with the trope's description and application of exploring the consequences as long as the benefits get brought up

Edited by Angelspawndragon on Dec 16th 2023 at 1:08:53 AM