Nature and humanity

[Dr Jones]

So in school i kinda got into a discussion about nature, humanity and what is "unnatural", so i'd really like to hear you guys' opinions.

Basically it went like this.

Boy "The pollution is destroying the nature"
Me "But what is the nature exactly?"
B "Trees, animals and stuff like that"
M "Humanity, we, are a product of nature, therefore shouldn't what we do be a product of nature?"
B "No because we are destroying it with buildings"
M "Buildings can be nature, everything we've made so far is natural, it's all just biology, all we've made is made of natural resources, therfore shouldn't the result be natural?"


and so forth, so whaddaya guys think? What i say is not my opinion exactly, i'm just asking "Why aren't buildings natural?" And the discussion is still unresolved.

 

[bdcjacko]

Yeah, why is the hover dam unnatural, but a beaver dam is natural? Why are those giant ant hills in Africa natural, while sky scrappers aren't?

I'll tell you why, because humans still have their heads up their asses thinking we are some how different than nature.

 

[leedwashere]

The argument on the other end seems, to me, to stem from an arrogance that somehow humanity is exempt from being a part of nature simply because we have the intelligence to do things with nature far beyond what most other creatures on earth do. Beavers drastically alter the environments around them, but as far as I can tell, they feel no guilt about it.

I suppose the only things that aren't strictly natural would be the laboratory-created elements that don't exist naturally in nature because they're too heavy, but even those don't last very long (ironic, I think). I agree that wanton destruction of "nature" is reprehensible, it would be counter-productive and downright silly if humanity decided not to touch anything that they didn't personally make because "nature" is somehow sacrosanct.

(partially ninja'd >.>)

 

[Dr Jones]

Exactly! Couldn't have put it better myself! Although i do believe things like gene splicing and cloning are natural. I mean we are just a bunch of lines with different colors matching up, how come when we make it ourselves it ain't natural?

Also could you translate all you just said in "plain" english?

 

[SilentCom]

I think B is implying anything man-made is not natural. It's not really about the concept of humanity being the product of nature, it seems like he is illustrating humanity as being separate from nature therefore our constructs are not of natural cause.

Essentially your argument of humanity being a product of nature implies an evolutionary stance that people evolved alongside nature while his stance is differentiation that still illustrates the affects of religious view on humanities place in the universe as being higher up on the chain and therefore we should be more responsible in interacting with nature.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Ugh. This thread again.

When people attribute something as being unnatural, they are usually referring to humanities ability to do things other organisms cannot do, not necessarily something nature can't do.

Edit: which is to say most people realize we are natural constructs, and are therefore natural. Though your buddy may be a bit loony

 

[Dr Jones]

Ugh. This thread again.

When people attribute something as being unnatural, they are usually referring to humanities ability to do things other organisms cannot do, not necessarily something nature can't do.

Ah, but that is something else, isn't that called "Irregular?"
Didn't know there already was a thread like this..

 

[similar.squirrel]

Just think of humanity as a cancer. Out of control reproduction wreaking havoc with the organism that is the Earth.

 

[Thespian]

Ugh. This thread again.

When people attribute something as being unnatural, they are usually referring to humanities ability to do things other organisms cannot do, not necessarily something nature can't do.

Edit: which is to say most people realize we are natural constructs, and are therefore natural. Though your buddy may be a bit loony

But (and I'm just using your post to reply to the general argument you demonstrated) LOTS of organisms can do stuff we can't do, is that unnatural?

Nature produced a species that saw fit to create certain advanced tools to survive. As it has many other times. And will again.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Ugh. This thread again.

When people attribute something as being unnatural, they are usually referring to humanities ability to do things other organisms cannot do, not necessarily something nature can't do.

Edit: which is to say most people realize we are natural constructs, and are therefore natural. Though your buddy may be a bit loony

But (and I'm just using your post to reply to the general argument you demonstrated) LOTS of organisms can do stuff we can't do, is that unnatural?

Nature produced a species that saw fit to create certain advanced tools to survive. As it has many other times. And will again.

no organism can do anything we can do on our scale. beavers make dams on streams and rivers? We make dams that form major bodies of water. ants make ant hills? We make sky scrapers that kiss the very heavens. we split the atom, forge engines that move thousands of tons of iron across the seas and earth. we level mountains and drill over a dozen miles into the earth to claim the fuel of long dead animals.

what we are capable of is very special indeed, and no creature on earth comes even close to our achievements. we are mighty.

still the product and children of nature, yes, but humanity is truly awe inspiring.

 

[BioHazardMan]

How is this even an argument?

 

[Christian Lerche]

Mother nature doesn't have a counterpart to nuclear bombs and assult rifles. Just sayin'

 

[Thespian]

no organism can do anything we can do on our scale. beavers make dams on streams and rivers? We make dams that form major bodies of water. ants make ant hills? We make sky scrapers that kiss the very heavens. we split the atom, forge engines that move thousands of tons of iron across the seas and earth. we level mountains and drill over a dozen miles into the earth to claim the fuel of long dead animals.

what we are capable of is very special indeed, and no creature on earth comes even close to our achievements. we are mighty.

still the product and children of nature, yes, but humanity is truly awe inspiring.

[Insert buzzer that goes *ERRRRRRRRR* here]

Sorry, that's not true, at all.

First of all, I did say Organism which kinda suggested without tools, but let's do it your way.

Firstly, off the coast of Australia a few years back, a species of shark was discovered to be able to live at depths of the ocean previously thought impossible. The most advanced aquatic surveillance probes have been sent on exploratory missions but imploded out of the sheer pressure before they could follow the shark as far down.

For all the development on adhesives that could work akin to the wall-crawling of Spiderman, we have been yet unable to develop one because in the nature of Adhesives, as one scales a vertical surface the adhesive collects dust and dirt particles, gradually becoming less effective. Geckoes, however, seemingly miraculously are unaffected as their adhesive toes actually get cleaner as they go along.

There are a number of things animals can do that humans cannot. For example, you can't say that we can do what bats can do (communicate on ultrasonic frequencies) simply because we have developed machines for it. This is because a) said machines allow us only to understand, not to reciprocate and b) not all humans can work said machines.

Think about it. You could not build a skyscraper. A thousand humans all with your skillset and abilities could not build a skyscraper. Some humans can, but not you. It is not a trait inherent to each member of our species. Any Ant you find can contribute to Anthills as much as any other ant.

Now I'm going to look silly here because you are gonna turn out to be a highly skilled architect or something, but you get the idea.

Not that humans aren't great and all, but don't assume that humans are superior. For example, there are several million insects for every single human being. If Insects wanted to exterminate our species, they could probably do serious damage.

Animals just don't care about superiority or "mightiness" as you put it. Why should it? Most things in nature are happy enough just to survive. We should be too. How do you define "Mightiness"? For what purpose would a centipede have for a Skyscraper? What makes a Skyscraper better than the fact that insects are the most skilled reproducers in the animal kingdom?

 

[rsvp42]

Even though you could argue that, since we are a product of nature, our creations are also natural, it's important for the sake of environmental protection to make the distinction between man-made things and basically everything else. We have the ability to drastically alter the ecosystems of our planet in ways that other organisms can't and as such, we need to pay close attention the effects of our actions as a species.

So if you're simply exploring the philosophical implications of what counts as "nature," that's fine, but if you're going to then apply that to the real world as justification for pollution or other irresponsible side-effects of human industry, then I'd have to take issue with that.

 

[iblis666]

Mother nature doesn't have a counterpart to nuclear bombs and assult rifles. Just sayin'

so volcanoes and meteors are exempt i take it?

nature and natural and all that stuff are fairly meaningless concepts in my opinion

but some people believe because we behave in a way that other animals dont we should be considered outside the natural order but that doesnt mean that we shouldnt be acting to preserve nature since if nature goes we go as well

 

[Christian Lerche]

Mother nature doesn't have a counterpart to nuclear bombs and assult rifles. Just sayin'

so volcanoes and meteors are exempt i take it?

nature and natural and all that stuff are fairly meaningless concepts in my opinion

but some people believe because we behave in a way that other animals dont we should be considered outside the natural order but that doesnt mean that we shouldnt be acting to preserve nature since if nature goes we go as well

Well, I don't see a stockpile of 25.000 (or less) tactical volcanos, but I see your point.

What the ultimate argument is, that we have the ability to choose whether or not to inflict polution. We KNOW the shit we throw out is harmfull to the economic system and ignoring that for a prolonged time, can come back around and bites us in the ass.
Have you seen the slums of south africe? What do you think they do with garbage? They don't have a clue in how the PH value lowers, or the acid rain that comes from human disposal, they just put it their lake, which still serves as a water source and public toilet.(fact)

WE ARE outside the natrual order, we can change the fate of millions of different animals that are indangered, and we chose not to, because we'd rather think of ourselves. (opinion)

I think I made my point clear, but we also ruin ourselves. Natives in greenland, new zealand, and america, have not been effected in a positive manner from people who've set themselves way way way above the food chain as we know, or should I say, knew it.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Mother nature doesn't have a counterpart to nuclear bombs and assult rifles. Just sayin'

They've found naturally occurring fission reactors. In France I believe (Or maybe it was just a french guy that found it. Can't remember).

EDIT: Gabon, West Africa. Discovered by French Scientist.

[Insert buzzer that goes *ERRRRRRRRR* here]

And now I ignore you. No point in arguing with a 12 year old.

 

[Christian Lerche]

Mother nature doesn't have a counterpart to nuclear bombs and assult rifles. Just sayin'

They've found naturally occurring fission reactors. In France I believe (Or maybe it was just a french guy that found it. Can't remember).

[Insert buzzer that goes *ERRRRRRRRR* here]

And now I ignore you. No point in arguing with a 12 year old.

Really? I'd like to see an article of that if you'd be inclined

 

[DefunctTheory]

Mother nature doesn't have a counterpart to nuclear bombs and assult rifles. Just sayin'

They've found naturally occurring fission reactors. In France I believe (Or maybe it was just a french guy that found it. Can't remember).

[Insert buzzer that goes *ERRRRRRRRR* here]

And now I ignore you. No point in arguing with a 12 year old.

Really? I'd like to see an article of that if you'd be inclined

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

http://geology.about.com/od/geophysics/a/aaoklo.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ancient-nuclear-reactor

 

[Christian Lerche]

Mother nature doesn't have a counterpart to nuclear bombs and assult rifles. Just sayin'

They've found naturally occurring fission reactors. In France I believe (Or maybe it was just a french guy that found it. Can't remember).

[Insert buzzer that goes *ERRRRRRRRR* here]

And now I ignore you. No point in arguing with a 12 year old.

Really? I'd like to see an article of that if you'd be inclined

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

http://geology.about.com/od/geophysics/a/aaoklo.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ancient-nuclear-reactor

Nuclear in nature is not big news though, uranium has always existed, besides "The Oklo uranium ore deposits are the only known sites in which natural nuclear reactors existed"(under Mechanism of the reactors section of wiki)
we've just eploited the effects of combining nuclear effect (extreme heat by seperating molecules) and steam from heated water. Here it just so happens that all the elements are present. When think more of nuclear capabilities, I thought more of the weaponized kind.
Thanks for sharing.