NATURE ON TRIAL: A PHILOSOPHICAL INTERROGATION OF G.C. WILLIAMS’ “MOTHER NATURE IS A WICKED OLD WITCH” U.S. ODOZOR Department of Communication and General Studies, University of Agriculture, Abeokuta Corresponding Author: odozorus@ funaab.edu.ng; Tel .: +234802-083-9272 ABSTRACT In what amounts to a trial, George C. Williams, in his “Mother Nature Is a Wicked Old Witch,” charges nature with cruelty and abject insensitivity to human interests and values, arguing that nature is hostile to life. Nature is the villain, while humans are its ‘victims’. However, given the vast resources har- nessed for human well-being, through the ongoing enterprise of natural science, Williams’ critique of the moral fibre of nature can only be self-defeating, and in need of outright revision. Through concep- tual analysis, exposition and reconstruction, this paper critically responds to Williams’ philosophy of a human-centered universe. Arguing that nature is well suited to meet rational human interests, the pa- per found that the level of ecological crisis already attained globally, even as Williams wrote, renders his thesis questionable. Also, Williams’ anthropomorphic stance towards nature is quite striking, as nature is totally mindless and uncoordinated in its so-called ‘activities’. Keywords: cosmos; ethics; human interest; nature; value; Williams INTRODUCTION It has been presumed—even in recent scholarship—that nature has been put there merely to serve human interests and values. G eorge Christopher Williams’ essay titled “Mother Nature Is a Wicked Old Witch” (1993), represents, on a judicious reading, an eloquent expression of this an- thropocentric outlook on the universe. Wil- liams contends that nature is unreservedly hostile, even diabolically disposed, towards life in general, but towards human interests and values in particular. This paper is a criti- cal reflection on the concept of nature, against the backdrop of Williams’ attack. It consists in commonsense reflections on the subject of nature, relying on the body of knowledge available in the natural sciences. With the vast resources available and har- nessed for human well-being through the continuing unraveling of nature in science, it is evident that Williams’ lopsided depiction of nature is ill-informed, and expressly in need of revision. Williams’ essay in outline Williams (1993:217) states clearly from the outset that he aims to demonstrate that “the universe is hostile to human life and values,” and to “counter the ‘biocentric’ view of the universe.” Williams chooses the Gaia hy- pothesis advanced by the British scientist, James Lovelock, and his colleague, Lynn Margulis (Lovelock and Margulis, 1974), as an example of this view. It states, roughly, that adaptation is symmetrical, with organ- Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences and Creative Arts 54 ISSN: Print - 2277 - 078X Online - 2315 - 747X © FUNAAB 2015 J. Hum. Soc. Sci. & Crtv. Arts 2015, 10: 54-68