I'm honestly surprised so many people hold this opinion. Why?

Here's my reasoning:

Humans are created by nature and are therefore an expression of nature, albeit a more complex one.

It is an unsupported belief that anything done by humans is unnatural and so the burden of proof is on people who believe this.

I don't believe it's un-natural, more human instinct. Have myself been guilty (maybe that's the wrong word but it's 5.20am) of playing away from home.

But the grass isn't always greener...

If we consider human affairs as reflections of human thinking, try this:

Does nature tell anything about human thinking? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=102556)

stateofmind:

Can you name something that is unnatural, according to your own definition?

Natural is that which falls into place by acts of nature. Natural--to be certain--isn't always good (especially if you're one of the species being snuffed out by a volcano, ice sheet or meteorite). Humans have transcended nature. This--also--is not necessarily a bad thing.

But, yeah, our affairs have definitely crossed beyond natural.

~String

stateofmind:

Can you name something that is unnatural, according to your own definition?

Something not created by nature.

So, you can't then?

I'm honestly surprised so many people hold this opinion. Why?

Here's my reasoning:

Humans are created by nature and are therefore an expression of nature, albeit a more complex one.

It is an unsupported belief that anything done by humans is unnatural and so the burden of proof is on people who believe this.

What are your reasons for bringing this up? Are you looking for a way to excuse humanity from crapping all over the planet?

nat·u·ral
–adjective
1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural

ar·ti·fi·cial
–adjective
1. made by human skill; produced by humans ( opposed to natural): artificial flowers.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/artificial

So, you can't then?I thought this was his point. That there are not unnatural things.

nat·u·ral
–adjective
1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural

ar·ti·fi·cial
–adjective
1. made by human skill; produced by humans ( opposed to natural): artificial flowers.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/artificialBut does this make sense? Dictionaries recount human use of words. This does not mean that there really is anything artificial.

For example....



phys·i·cal
 
 /ˈfɪzɪkəl/ Show Spelled[fiz-i-kuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of or pertaining to the body: physical exercise.
2.
of or pertaining to that which is material: the physical universe; the physical sciences.



spir·it·u·al
 –adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal.
2.
of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach to life.

Have I demonstrated that there are spiritual affairs? (IOW, using the thread title, Are some human affairs Spiritual? and responding in a parallel way to your response)

But does this make sense? Dictionaries recount human use of words. This does not mean that there really is anything artificial.
Yes, it makes a lot of sense. If humans made it is artificial. If not, it's natural :shrug:
Isn't that what we humans do, singling ourselves out? The alternative is less attractive to most people, I can assure you. Self-importance is bliss..


For example....
Have I demonstrated that there are spiritual affairs? (IOW, using the thread title, Are some human affairs Spiritual? and responding in a parallel way to your response)
I don't see the parallel. Are you suggesting that spiritualism is not real?

Affairs by Republican senators seem to be more unnatural than most other people's, although I'm not sure what bearing this has on the topic. Also Democrats'.

I don't see the parallel. Are you suggesting that spiritualism is not real?

She's saying that quoting a dictionary doesn't prove anything.

It is an unsupported belief that anything done by humans is unnatural and so the burden of proof is on people who believe this.
You're simply trolling.
It has been pointed out to you, more (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2589698&postcount=57) than (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2589742&postcount=75) once (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2589727&postcount=70), that these terms are human definitions and are used by convention because they have a specific meaning. They are simply a means of distinguishing A from B. Humans categorise. Naturally.
Do you distinguish between, say, tree and leaf? Or Tree and apple? Why?
Surely they're all part of the same thing.
All you're doing here is is claiming that everyone else is wrong (to USE a term with an understood meaning) and that you, solely, are correct.

She's saying that quoting a dictionary doesn't prove anything.

So generally accepted definitions don't mean a thing? You rather just make up your own definitions?

stateofmind:

Can you name something that is unnatural, according to your own definition?

Spot on James. This is exactly the question stateofmind needs to answer.

Given the context ("human affairs"), what could possibly qualify as unnatural?

are some human affairs illogical?
sure but it all depends on one's pov...

for instance, an industrial plant and the disposal of its effluents....

Spot on James. This is exactly the question stateofmind needs to answer.

Given the context ("human affairs"), what could possibly qualify as unnatural?


ummm...


I thought this was his point. That there are not unnatural things.

ummm...

Your point Gustav?

Doreen expressed what she believes stateofmind's point to be.
As it stands, it's unclear whether or not that is in fact his point.

Moreover, assuming that it is, where are all these people stateofmind points out as believing in these unnatural behaviours...?

where are all these people stateofmind points out as believing in these unnatural behaviours...?

You can count on me, as I linked my relevant post above.

Moreover, assuming that it is, where are all these people stateofmind points out as believing in these unnatural behaviours...?

Two right here:


Natural is that which falls into place by acts of nature. Natural--to be certain--isn't always good (especially if you're one of the species being snuffed out by a volcano, ice sheet or meteorite). Humans have transcended nature. This--also--is not necessarily a bad thing.

But, yeah, our affairs have definitely crossed beyond natural.

~String


Affairs by Republican senators seem to be more unnatural than most other people's, although I'm not sure what bearing this has on the topic. Also Democrats'.

To be clear: my criticism was directed at the wording of the OP, not the content of it.


In any case:



You can count on me, as I linked my relevant post above.

Not to go too tangential here baftan but, wouldn't you say that your position there is more concerned with a theory of the Natural (or, the Mind), as opposed to what we ordinarily call common 'natural behaviour'?



Two right here:

I think in strings case, he's using the term "natural" in a different sense than stateofmind is.
Hard to say without a definition......

As for Geoff, well.... disapproval or lack of understanding doesn't make behaviour unnatural...

Not to go too tangential here baftan but, wouldn't you say that your position there is more concerned with a theory of the Natural (or, the Mind), as opposed to what we ordinarily call common 'natural behaviour'?


My position is exactly being against to this assumption of "natural behaviour" when it comes to humans; alongside other "natural" branded phenomenons (such as the mind).

My position is exactly being against to this assumption of "natural behaviour" when it comes to humans; alongside other "natural" branded phenomenons (such as the mind).

Fair enough.
So there would then, as a corollary, be no unnatural behaviour, yes?

I thought this was his point. That there are not unnatural things.

He hasn't made it clear that this is his claim - i.e. that nothing is unnatural.

If it is his claim, then we have an empty discussion. He defines everything as natural, and therefore has no need of the terms "natural" and "unnatural", so why he chooses to talk about them is a mystery.

Anything outside two standard deviations is unnatural.

Blessed is the norm!

Yes, it makes a lot of sense. If humans made it is artificial. If not, it's natural :shrug:So we are outside of nature? And we can make things that are outside nature? Is that what you are asserting? I am not saying that we don't use the words that way, I am saying we use them incorrectly. At least from a scientific perspective. Why should our products not be a part of nature and the products of beavers and wasps be a part of nature?


Isn't that what we humans do, singling ourselves out? The alternative is less attractive to most people, I can assure you. Self-importance is bliss..But saying that what we make is not part of nature is precisely self-important. It says we are different and not a part of nature.



I don't see the parallel. Are you suggesting that spiritualism is not real?I am going to assume you really don't see, here. Of course the phenomenon of spiritualism or spirituality is real. But the parallel is with adjectives.

He asked if humans artifacts are unnatural. You responded by pointing out the definitions of natural and artificial as if the latter showed that our products are not natural. I could then use the adjective 'spiritual' to show that some things are not physical. Would that argument work for you? Do you now believe there are spiritual entities because we have a word in the language for it?

He hasn't made it clear that this is his claim - i.e. that nothing is unnatural.Oh, I disagree. Look at the first post....

I
'm honestly surprised so many people hold this opinion. Why?

Here's my reasoning:

Humans are created by nature and are therefore an expression of nature, albeit a more complex one.

It is an unsupported belief that anything done by humans is unnatural and so the burden of proof is on people who believe this.

He is clearly presenting us with an argument that human affairs are natural. It is possible he is using this as part of a reductio ad absurdum. But his Thread title and OP are clearly an argumnet against the notion that some human things are unnatural.


If it is his claim, then we have an empty discussion. Not if people disagree and it seems to me Enmos disagrees.


He defines everything as natural, and therefore has no need of the terms "natural" and "unnatural", so why he chooses to talk about them is a mystery.He is making a case that many people disagree with. Many people think that humans are different and their products are not part of nature. As I mentioned I think it might be possible, given some of his other positions, that he is using this as a reductio ad absurdum. Or pointing out the consequences of a certain position. If he is or he is not, I doubt there will be consensus on the argument in question however it is used. As Enmos pointed out our language seems to indicate there are two realms - please note my responses to Enmos before showing me the weakness of that argument.

You're simply trolling.
It has been pointed out to you, more (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2589698&postcount=57) than (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2589742&postcount=75) once (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2589727&postcount=70), that these terms are human definitions and are used by convention because they have a specific meaning. They are simply a means of distinguishing A from B. Humans categorise. Naturally.
Do you distinguish between, say, tree and leaf? Or Tree and apple? Why?
Surely they're all part of the same thing.
All you're doing here is is claiming that everyone else is wrong (to USE a term with an understood meaning) and that you, solely, are correct.
I don't see this as trolling at all. Notice Enmos' responses. Here we have someone who seems to be saying these terms reflect essential differences, a position which, I think, fits Enmos distaste for the way humans interact with nature. And note even in that last phrase how the distinction is endemic and is not merely about categorizing. I am guessing, though perhaps incorrectly, that SoM is pointing out the consequences of seeing everything as nature. That the argument will take this turn. But right now we have a face value argument that everything, including everythign we do and make is natural. And already we have at least one person disagreeing., despite their not being in the spiritual/theist/surpernatural camp.

That is interesting.

I believe Signal has pointed out other posts where a degree of naturalness is positied by people who are also not from the theist/supernatural camp.

How can this be?

I think in strings case, he's using the term "natural" in a different sense than stateofmind is.
Hard to say without a definition......If he is, given the context, this is still significant. Here we have a thread specifically raising the issue of Is anything unnatural and the OP taking the stance that nothing is. If, in this context, supers. comes in and speaks of natural in some other sense, what is happening?


As for Geoff, well.... disapproval or lack of understanding doesn't make behaviour unnatural...But still Signal's point holds. Even if you think Geoff is using (creating) a category incorrectly, their seems to be dissent.


Actually I think what is going on is that stateofmind is seen as coming from one camp. So those critical of that camp are taking his OP in a certain way - as an argument for, precisely opposite what it says, the distinction. As the thread progresses it is actually other people, from the other camp (+plus Geoff) who are upholding the distinction - see my exchange with Enmos.

Stateofmind may have something up his sleeve, but he is holding his poker face, in any case. And yet you, James R. and Dywyddr are focusing on stateofmind, despite his posts saying there is no distinction, while others post as if there is one.

I don't see this as trolling at all.
If you checked the links I gave it would clarify matters slightly.
SoM has declared that everything is natural (as per James' comment - there's nothing to talk about), and it has been explained to SoM that the distinction is arbitrary. (As are most human classifications).

I.e. SoM is applying his definition of "unnatural" to everyone else's USE of the word and crying "But it isn't! How can you say that?"

I'm also wondering how SoM managed to achieve the age he has, in the society he's in, without actually being aware of this use and its underlying assumptions (something he appears to not grasp given his posts in the linked thread).

Does he, for example, invade clothes shops Lynne Truss-style and relabel all of the shirts from "Man made fibre" and "Natural fibre" so they all state "Natural fibre"? :shrug:

If you checked the links I gave it would clarify matters slightly.
SoM has declared that everything is natural (as per James' comment - there's nothing to talk about),
If people agree, there's nothing to talk about. But I don't think they do agree. I am not sure Enmos agrees, regardless of definition. I think he sees human effects as unnatural - see his anger about them in other threads. IOW if I see everyone agree on the philosophical level SoM is presenting here, OK; there is nothing to talk about. But here we are in the philosophy forum (at sciforums). It seems to me the level we are talking about is clear in the OP. Still people are reluctant to give up the distinction, as far as I can see. And other than Geoffy, who I think is a theist, the others are non-theists. So what is going on?


and it has been explained to SoM that the distinction is arbitrary. (As are most human classifications).Sure. But once the specific issue is pointed out, why are we still getting these other uses. In this thread, I could see your position if Signal, for example, was pulling quotes from other threads. But in this context people are still acting as if the philosophical distiction exists. And they are doing this not because of SoMs behavior elsewhere.


I.e. SoM is applying his definition of "unnatural" to everyone else's USE of the word and crying "But it isn't! How can you say that?"see above.

So we are outside of nature? And we can make things that are outside nature? Is that what you are asserting? I am not saying that we don't use the words that way, I am saying we use them incorrectly. At least from a scientific perspective. Why should our products not be a part of nature and the products of beavers and wasps be a part of nature?
Because humans set themselves apart from nature.


But saying that what we make is not part of nature is precisely self-important. It says we are different and not a part of nature.
Yes, that's what I said. Isn't it?


I am going to assume you really don't see, here. Of course the phenomenon of spiritualism or spirituality is real. But the parallel is with adjectives.

He asked if humans artifacts are unnatural. You responded by pointing out the definitions of natural and artificial as if the latter showed that our products are not natural. I could then use the adjective 'spiritual' to show that some things are not physical. Would that argument work for you? Do you now believe there are spiritual entities because we have a word in the language for it?
Do you believe that there are no human artifacts? By definition, human artifacts are not natural. They are artificial (which is opposed to natural). I'm sorry, perhaps I'm just too stupid to see your point.

And where did you pull spiritual entities from? Spirituality doesn't have anything to do with non-physical beings. Not per se anyway.

Because humans set themselves apart from nature.

That's a really interesting observation - and it's true. At some point in history humans regarded nature as "other" and created a duality (whether that duality actually exists or is just a construct of our deluded minds).

For those of you who think I wasn't being clear about the definition of "unnatural", I mean it in its most literal sense, defined as "not of nature".

That's a really interesting observation - and it's true. At some point in history humans regarded nature as "other" and created a duality (whether that duality actually exists or is just a construct of our deluded minds).
There are different definitions of the word 'nature' though.
I thought we were talking about nature in the sense of 'the sum of all ecosystems here on Earth' as opposed to 'everything in existence'. Humans usually place themselves outside of nature in the sense of the former, and I think they are right to do so. Humans have pretty much extracted themselves from the natural scenery and either created their own environment or reshaped the natural one to fit their desires.


For those of you who think I wasn't being clear about the definition of "unnatural", I mean it in its most literal sense, defined as "not of nature".
That definition is nonsensical. Literally seen, there is nothing outside of nature. Nature, as defined by you, is synonymous with words like: reality, universe, existence.

That definition is nonsensical. Literally seen, there is nothing outside of nature. Nature, as defined by you, is synonymous with words like: reality, universe, existence.

Isn't the universe just one big natural environment? I don't understand this sentimental idea of this picturesque nature being the one true nature. But let's use your definition of "the sum of all ecosystems here on Earth" instead of mine because I think it gets closer to the heart of the matter.

A beaver builds a dam for a home and yet they are part of this sentimental idea of "nature". A man builds a modern house with concrete foundation and asbestos insulation and because a certain degree more ingenuity and processing went into it, nobody allows it to go into their sentimental picture of "nature". Most of the time I don't blame them. The shit we make is ugly and rude.

The fact is though, it still belongs there, in that definition of nature you have as "the sum of all ecosystems here on Earth". Here's your argument: Because humans make careless, ugly things and all of the other animals don't, humans are therefore not in "the sum of all ecosystems here on Earth".

The argument isn't sound. It is up to you to prove that we are not part of "the sum of all ecosystems here on Earth" because you're making this assumption and I'm not.

You will probably argue that all of the places without humans flourish with animal life. That's still not a sound argument to separate us and deem us an aberration, because now you're just throwing purpose into the whole thing. For underlying that argument, it is assumed by you that the purpose of the universe is for animal life to thrive. If you want to go down that road then you're in the same boat as any other theist, dealing with the purpose of life (which you've no doubt obtained from some phantom spirit, feeling, energy, deity, etc.) and how one should live it.

And hey, that's fine too.

nicely done, state
this might amuse...


STATE OF MICHIGAN

Reply to: GRAND RAPIDS DISTRICT OFFICE STATE OFFICE BUILDING 6TH FLOOR
350 OTTAWA NW GRAND RAPIDS MI 49503-2341
JOHN ENGLER, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
HOLLISTER BUILDING, PO BOX 30473, LANSING MI 48909-7973
INTERNET: http://www.deq.state.mi
RUSSELL J. HARDING, Director

December 17, 1997

CERTIFIED

Mr. Ryan DeVries 2088 Dagget Pierson, MI 49339

Dear Mr. DeVries:

SUBJECT: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023-1 T11N, R10W, Sec. 20, Montcalm County

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:

Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files show that no permits have been issued.

Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated. The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris dams and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all unauthorized activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the strewn channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 1998. Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request, or any further unauthorized activity on the site, may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter.

Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

David L. Price
District Representative Land and Water Management Division




REPLY:


Dear Mr. Price:

Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N, R10W, Sec 20; Montcalm County

Your certified letter dated 12/17/97 has been handed to me to respond to. You sent out a great deal of carbon copies to a lot of people, but you neglected to include their addresses. You will, therefore, have to send them a copy of my response.

First of all, Mr. Ryan DeVries is not the legal landowner and/or contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan - I am the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, nor authorize, their dam project, I think they would be highly offended you call their skillful use of natural building materials "debris." I would like to challenge you to attempt to emulate their dam project any dam time and/or any dam place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no dam way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.

As to your dam request the beavers first must fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity, my first dam question to you is: are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers or do you require all dam beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, please send me completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated.

My first concern is - aren't the dam beavers entitled to dam legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said dam representation - so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing dam flooding is proof we should leave the dam Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names. If you want the dam stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition - contact the dam beavers - but if you are going to arrest them (they obviously did not pay any dam attention to your dam letter-being unable to read English) - be sure you read them their dam Miranda rights first.

As for me, I am not going to cause more dam flooding or dam debris jams by interfering with these dam builders. If you want to hurt these dam beavers - be aware I am sending a copy of your dam letter and this response to PETA. If your dam Department seriously finds all dams of this nature inherently hazardous and truly will not permit their existence in this dam State - I seriously hope you are not selectively enforcing this dam policy, or once again both I and the Spring Pond Beavers will scream prejudice!

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their dam unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green, and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than I to live and enjoy Spring Pond. So, as far as I and the beavers are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more dam elevated enforcement action now. Why wait until 1/31/98? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then, and there will be no dam way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem: bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the dam beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!) Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

Sincerely,
Stephen L. Tvedten


of course it is hardly as amusing as seeing some infer the exact opposite of your rather clearly expressed sentiments in the tt and op

Hah. Dam excellent.

I think that some human affairs are unnatural, and that gustav was almost certainly the product of some of them.

Here's your argument: Because humans make careless, ugly things and all of the other animals don't, humans are therefore not in "the sum of all ecosystems here on Earth".
I made no such argument.
Humans are largely surviving outside of any natural ecosystems nowadays, that's my argument.
They are no longer directly dependent on natural ecosystems for food for instance (at least in the west) and instead have created their own artificial ones. They don't depend on forest etc for shelter. They do not have any natural enemies to fear. Etc.
Bottom line: humans have worked, and are working, to set themselves apart from nature and have been very successful at it. They have created their own artificial environments.
All of the animals you mention are all completely dependent on their ecosystem to survive.


You will probably argue that all of the places without humans flourish with animal life. That's still not a sound argument to separate us and deem us an aberration, because now you're just throwing purpose into the whole thing.
No. Stop putting words in my mouth.


For underlying that argument, it is assumed by you that the purpose of the universe is for animal life to thrive. If you want to go down that road then you're in the same boat as any other theist, dealing with the purpose of life (which you've no doubt obtained from some phantom spirit, feeling, energy, deity, etc.) and how one should live it.
I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing this crap. Life has no purpose.

I made no such argument.
Humans are largely surviving outside of any natural ecosystems nowadays, that's my argument.
They are no longer directly dependent on natural ecosystems for food for instance (at least in the west) and instead have created their own artificial ones. They don't depend on forest etc for shelter. They do not have any natural enemies to fear. Etc.
Bottom line: humans have worked, and are working, to set themselves apart from nature and have been very successful at it. They have created their own artificial environments.
All of the animals you mention are all completely dependent on their ecosystem to survive.


So having the ingenuity to rise above a short, fearful existence based solely on eating and reproducing and being burdensomely harnessed to whatever meager resources nature decides to throw at us... that's a bad thing, huh?

fearful existence based solely on eating and reproducing and being burdensomely harnessed to whatever meager resources nature decides to throw at us... that's a bad thing, huh?

Nature doesn't throw us anything; I mean we couldn't manage to feed our current population and civilization without human methods of harvesting and manipulating the nature (agriculture).

They don't depend on forest etc for shelter.


indeed. in fact we are giving termites (http://www.tdrinc.com/natarch.html) a run for their money, too. go humans!


Life has no purpose.


strange that. i could have sworn there was a biological imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_imperative) to persevere and reproduce

I made no such argument.
Humans are largely surviving outside of any natural ecosystems nowadays, that's my argument. They are no longer directly dependent on natural ecosystems for food for instance (at least in the west) and instead have created their own artificial ones. They don't depend on forest etc for shelter. They do not have any natural enemies to fear. Etc.

So you're arguing here that the only way to be natural, "part of an ecosystem", is to not process anything at all but only be dependent on raw materials of the environment?

Most every animal in the world processes the raw materials of their environment at least to some extent. A beaver processes trees to make a home. This is an indirect source for shelter. Why is the beaver still "part of an ecosystem" but not a human?

Is it not a matter of "direct dependency" so much as it is a matter of the degree to which humans do it? If so, how much processing must one do before they become "unnatural"? We seem to run into a "fallacy of the heap" with this question though so it may be impossible to answer. I find that I agree with you that this phenomenon of "unnatural" exists but it's being used as this vague blanket term that covers many different things.

Few would argue that basic sex between a man and a woman, a penis and a vagina, is anything but natural. And it is a human affair.

On the other hand, many would argue that the fact that commercial food in the U.S. travels an average of 2000 miles before it reaches someone's plate, is unnatural. And this is also a human affair. But this doesn't bother me on the grounds of its "unnaturalness", it bothers me because it is grossly inefficient and careless.

The reason I think people respect nature is because of its infinite efficiency, its lack of inhibition, its harmony, its simplicity and order. Why can't we admire people who exemplify these virtues and condemn those who lack them?

To use "it ain't natural" as the basis for an argument is just lazy. Let's not hate ourselves for doing "unnatural" human affairs, let's hate ourselves for being greedy or nasty or inconsiderate or inefficient or just plain shitheads.

Life has no purpose.

Then why the hell do you care about nature beyond your own lifetime? Just for kicks?

The reason I think people respect nature is because of its infinite efficiency
Nonsense. Nature isn't infinitely efficient.


let's hate ourselves for being greedy or nasty or inconsiderate or inefficient or just plain shitheads.
Why?
According to you that's only our natural behaviour, like beavers using trees.
Can you say "Double standard"?

Nonsense. Nature isn't infinitely efficient.

To be completely uninhibited would create "perfect" or maximum efficiency. In the reality we live in there are limits and frictions and so you couldn't get the theoretical equal trade off of equal input to output (like in newtonian physics) but it will still reach the maximum for any given situation. It's debatable whether it's infinite or not. This is really another debate entirely so you can make a thread about it if you want but let's not derail the thread with this.



Why?
According to you that's only our natural behaviour, like beavers using trees.
Can you say "Double standard"?

Here you're referring back to my original definition of nature as "everything in existence", okay. Just so everybody is clear.

All of those vices I mentioned are the natural behavior of ignorant people that don't know any better.* So even though it's a true expression of nature, it does not mean there is no room for improvement. A wiser lioness will swat her cub if it does something wrong or out of line.

*If they're not ignorant of what they're doing but doing them on purpose then that's a whole different ball game which would lead to people's beliefs about the purpose and meaning of life and retribution in future lives, etc. To argue about it will be useless because it will be all beliefs on my part and your part (if you're honest) and no one, as far as I know, has proved or disproved scientifically the atheist or theist (and everything in between) position. Make a thread about it if you want to debate it. It's off topic to pursue this here.

To be completely uninhibited would create "perfect" or maximum efficiency.
Uninhibited in what? By what?
And what makes you think there are any inhibitions operating now, since we're all natural?


In the reality we live in there are limits and frictions and so you couldn't get the theoretical equal trade off of equal input to output (like in newtonian physics) but it will still reach the maximum for any given situation.
That's a supposition.


It's debatable whether it's infinite or not.
I doubt it.


All of those vices I mentioned are the natural behavior of ignorant people that don't know any better.
Nope. They're just acting naturally.


So even though it's a true expression of nature, it does not mean there is no room for improvement.
Nope, we can only do what nature "intends" us to do.


A wiser lioness will swat her cub if it does something wrong or out of line.
How can it do anything "wrong" or "out of line"? It's only acting as its nature dictates.


If they're not ignorant of what they're doing but doing them on purpose then that's a whole different ball game
It doesn't matter whether they're doing it "on purpose" or "out of ignorance" - either way they are simply acting naturally. And the two terms have no real meaning.

stateofmind, I have some offers for you:

1. Describe the category of what you are doing in this forum at this very moment:

a) Having a natural affair
b) Dealing with some artificial environment
c) Bit of both
d) None of them

2. Ask yourself how did you decide on the character of your answer for the 1st question, what was your criteria/definition/understanding or even "emotion" to come up with your answer.

Note: You don't even have to share the answers with us...

Nature doesn't throw us anything; I mean we couldn't manage to feed our current population and civilization without human methods of harvesting and manipulating the nature (agriculture).

So planting and harvesting are evil human traits. I wonder if there are any parallels in the more acceptable species?

Here's one that ultimately benefits more than one species..

Seed dispersal by ants (myrmecochory) is a dispersal mechanism of many shrubs of the southern hemisphere or understorey herbs of the northern hemisphere [3]. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_dispersal) Seeds of myrmecochorous plants have a lipid-rich attachment called the elaiosome, which attracts ants. Ants carry such seeds into their colonies, feed the elaiosome to their larvae and discard the otherwise intact seed in an underground chamber [18]. Myrmecochory is thus a coevolved mutualistic relationship between plants and seed-disperser ants. Myrmecochory has independently evolved at least 100 times in flowering plants and is estimated to be present in at least 11 000 species, but likely up to 23 000 or 9% of all species of flowering plants [3]. Myrmecochorous plants are most frequent in the fynbos vegetation of the Cape Floristic Region of South Africa, the kwongan vegetation and other dry habitat types of Australia, dry forests and grasslands of the Mediterranean region and northern temperate forests of western Eurasia and eastern North America, where up to 30-40% of understorey herbs are myrmecochorous [3].


Evil tool use by the more acceptable species.. (http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=60578&CultureCode=en)

Chimpanzees in the Congo have developed specialised 'tool kits' to forage for army ants, reveals new research published today in the American Journal of Primatology. (http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=60578&CultureCode=en) This not only provides the first direct evidence of multiple tool use in this context, but suggests that chimpanzees have developed a 'sustainable' way of harvesting food.

A team from the Goualougo Triangle Ape Project, led by Dr Crickette Sanz, studied several communities of chimpanzee throughout the Nouabalé-Ndoki national park in the Republic of Congo. After spending a collective 111 months in the Goualougo Triangle, the team recovered 1,060 tools and collected 25 video recordings of chimpanzees using them to forage for army ants.

"The use of tool sets is rare and has most often been observed in great apes," said Sanz. "Until now there have been no reports of regular use of more than one type of tool to prey upon army ants."

It is already known that chimpanzees use tools when foraging for honey or collecting termites. However the variation in techniques and the relationship between the ants and the chimpanzees has perplexed scientists for decades.

"In other studies, based across Africa, chimpanzees have been seen to prey on army ants both with and without tools," said Sanz, "and it was inexplicable why some chimpanzees used different techniques to gather the same prey."

The average number of tools recovered by the team at each site was 3.37, while 36% of recovered tools sets contained two types of tools, nest perforating tools and ant-dipping probes. Ant-dipping probes are the most commonly observed method of catching army ants. The chimpanzee inserts a probe into a nest or column of ants and gathers the individuals who stream up the tool. The perforating tools on the other hand are used to open nests so the chimpanzee can gather the ants within.

Still, humans should bear the burden of the tool making and utilization sin. I shall assume, unless otherwise schooled by Enmos, that chimps still occupy that more noble level of Animalia.





Life has no purpose.

EDIT: following subquote added by G.B.

That may well be. However, as a thinking being..

strange that. i could have sworn there was a biological imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_imperative) to persevere and reproduce

Only for the Noble Level. Humanity is debatable.

So planting and harvesting are evil human traits. I wonder if there are any parallels in the more acceptable species?

But the topic is not "how evil we are".


Still, humans should bear the burden of the tool making and utilization sin. I shall assume, unless otherwise schooled by Enmos, that chimps still occupy that more noble level of Animalia.

The very definition of "evil" or "noble" belongs to human judgement/classification. I believe you are already -and categorically- separating humans (with their affairs including tool making and thinking) from nature. Otherwise you should come up with a "novel" explanation of how these "noble" chimps have been turned into "evil" us.


Humanity is debatable.

That's what humans normally do: Debate their actions.

You're correct dywyd in saying that even ignorant and what some would call "evil" people are acting naturally (in the context of the sum of their existence) - and they are valid expressions of nature. What you're forgetting though is that this natural state that we all have is constantly being changed and influenced by other natural states as well as our own will to change.

Even though a natural state is valid and understandable from the context of each individual, it does not mean that it embodies all of the ideals of happiness, efficiency, etc. This is why we change. No conscious thing purposely changes to make things worse for itself. If we embodied every ideal, especially that of happiness, why would we change at all?

Even though a natural state is valid and understandable from the context of each individual, it does not mean that it embodies all of the ideals of happiness, efficiency, etc.
So what?
Happiness and efficiency are human terms.
What does nature "care" about "happiness"?
And why do you keep bringing "efficiency" into it?
Nature is nature, it operates as it operates.

You have yet to answer this question:

Uninhibited in what? By what?
And what makes you think there are any inhibitions operating now, since we're all natural?
I contend that there are no "inhibitions". We live in nature and THAT is our environment, one for which we are suited. Is water an "inhibition" for a fish?
If everything is nature and there's no such thing as unnatural then distinctions like "happy", "inhibited", "wrong" etc are arbitrary and meaningless terms.
Does a lion complain about the "unfairness of it all" if a gazelle gets away?
Does a shrimp metaphorically crack open a beer at the end of a long swim and bitch about increasing chemical pollution?
Or is making arbitrary distinctions a purely human trait?
And if so then you have to decide if that is an indication of some sort of validity for our use of the distinction between natural and unnatural (i.e. man-made) or whether it's simply some sort of aberration with no real validity. Which, again, (given that we seem to be the only creatures to do this) would support the distinction.

Does a lion complain about the "unfairness of it all" if a gazelle gets away?
Does a shrimp metaphorically crack open a beer at the end of a long swim and bitch about increasing chemical pollution?
Or is making arbitrary distinctions a purely human trait?


well?

/bated breath

Yeah, I'm waiting too.

So's my shrimp: he wants to know where he stands on this issue.

pardon
i am asking you not state

I would have thought my position was fairly obvious...
However, in order:

Is water an "inhibition" for a fish?
No.

Does a lion complain about the "unfairness of it all" if a gazelle gets away?
I'm couldn't say for sure, but I doubt it bitches to its friends about it.

Does a shrimp metaphorically crack open a beer at the end of a long swim and bitch about increasing chemical pollution?
I doubt it.

Or is making arbitrary distinctions a purely human trait?
Probably. I'd guess. (At least to the extent of formalising them).

And if so then you have to decide if that is an indication of some sort of validity for our use of the distinction between natural and unnatural (i.e. man-made) or whether it's simply some sort of aberration with no real validity. Which, again, (given that we seem to be the only creatures to do this) would support the distinction.
And that is addressed directly to SoM. He's the one that contends that everything is natural yet somehow also manages to use "evil", "inhibited" "out of line" etc as if they had meaning.

I would have thought my position was fairly obvious...

investing some sense of biblical uniqueness upon humans? kinda obvious but no matter, redemption is at hand since you now seem admit you have no real clue about the inner life of other species


And that is addressed directly to SoM. He's the one that contends that everything is natural yet somehow also manages to use "evil", "inhibited" "out of line" etc as if they had meaning.


you guys are way too eager to troll and nitpick state. expressing a particular preference within a range of possible expressions is hardly alien to an animal sentience. it is why the kids across the street are punks while the ones next door are all things nice

hmm
about inner life....

Ever since our ancestors, the macrotermitine termites, achieved ten-kilogram weight and larger brains during their rapid evolution through the late Tertiary Period, and learned to write with pheromonal script, termitic scholarship has elevated and refined ethical philosophy. It is now possible to express the imperatives of moral behavior with precision. These imperatives are self-evident and universal. They are the very essence of termitity. They include the love of darkness and of the deep, saprophytic, basidiomycetic penetralia of the soil; the centrality of colony life amidst the richness of war and trade with other colonies, the sanctity of the physiological caste system; and the evil of personal rights (the colony is ALL!); our deep love for the royal siblings allowed to reproduce; the joy of chemical song; the aesthetic pleasure and deep social satisfaction of eating feces from nestmates' anuses after the shedding of our skins; and the ecstasy of cannibalism and surrender of our own bodies when we are sick or injured (it is more blessed to be eaten than to eat).(Wilson)

/smirk

I dont think anything a human being can do could be considered unnatural. Because humans are an integral part of nature. You cannot separate humans from nature or vice versa.

investing some sense of biblical uniqueness upon humans?Nope.

And if so then you have to decide if that is an indication of some sort of validity for our use of the distinction between natural and unnatural (i.e. man-made) or whether it's simply some sort of aberration with no real validity. Which, again, (given that we seem to be the only creatures to do this) would support the distinction.


you guys are way too eager to troll and nitpick state. expressing a particular preference within a range of possible expressions is hardly alien to an animal sentience.
Oh dear... It wasn't about "expressing a preference"
And don't forget SoM is the one that's nitpicking everyone else. That's the premise of his OP.


Ever since our ancestors, the macrotermitine termites, achieved ten-kilogram weight and larger brains during their rapid evolution through the late Tertiary Period, and learned to write with pheromonal script, termitic scholarship has elevated and refined ethical philosophy. etc
Riiight. :rolleyes:

Nope.Oh dear... It wasn't about "expressing a preference"


And that is addressed directly to SoM. He's the one that contends that everything is natural yet somehow also manages to use "evil", "inhibited" "out of line" etc as if they had meaning.


look again
your semantics clearly preclude humans from pronouncing judgments or expressing a sentiment on any single mode of behavior selected from a range of possible behaviors simply because every possible expression has been deemed natural

it simply does not follow
how does this transformation occur?
did we simply fall asleep only to wake up as zombies?

look again
your semantics clearly preclude humans from pronouncing judgments or expressing a sentiment on any single mode of behavior selected from a range of possible behaviors simply because every possible expression has been deemed natural
I suggest you look again.
That is not what I was suggesting at all.
The contention that everything is natural was SoM's.
I'm asking how something can be deemed "evil" (or "out of line" or whatever) if it is in fact "merely" natural?

/befuddled

i'll let this drop with a ...how indeed.. and a...

/smirk

I'm asking how something can be deemed "evil" (or "out of line" or whatever) if it is in fact "merely" natural?

Because even though every thing is a valid expression of nature, this does not mean that every thing is in its utmost state of desirability (relatively speaking). Since we change, and have possibly infinite choices over what kind of change will take place at any given moment, we are therefore in a position to nurture, alter, redirect, and/or influence all things (to some extent or another) into states of higher desirability (again relatively speaking).

Because even though every thing is a valid expression of nature, this does not mean that every thing is in its utmost state of desirability (relatively speaking).
You'll have to expand on that. Are you proposing that things should become unnatural? Or that nature itself isn't "right"?


states of higher desirability
So you're saying it's natural to be unsatisfied with nature? Or what?

You'll have to expand on that. Are you proposing that things should become unnatural? Or that nature itself isn't "right"?

I'm saying that it's natural to change for the betterment of the self.*


So you're saying it's natural to be unsatisfied with nature? Or what?

It must be. If the lioness were satisfied when her belly growled then she would never prey on the gazelle.

*It can be argued that in many situations the betterment of others is also more desirable to the self. If you want to debate this point you'll have to make another thread because although it's related, this debate does not hinge on it being true or false.

I'm saying that it's natural to change for the betterment of the self.*
*It can be argued that in many situations the betterment of others is also more desirable to the self. If you want to debate this point you'll have to make another thread because although it's related, this debate does not hinge on it being true or false.
Except that you HAVE made the equivalence.
Your first sentence says "betterment of the self" whereas I asked about desirable. And THEN you say say "it can be argued" the two are the same. :shrug:
And I'd say your statement is equally debatable.


It must be. If the lioness were satisfied when her belly growled then she would never prey on the gazelle.
Oh dear, you don't see physical hunger as a biological/ physiological thing then? It's a psychological one?

Because even though every thing is a valid expression of nature, this does not mean that every thing is in its utmost state of desirability (relatively speaking).
relative to humanities point of perspective..
humanities ability to find fault with anything..

I'm saying that it's natural to change for the betterment of the self.*

to accept the fault or delete it?

Everything Humans have done and will do is natural, there is no way to be un-natural. You'll have to go out of the universe for that. We are probably another way of nature expressing itself.

this is believed because people assume nature is perfect. it is constantly evolving or adapting, that's it. nature is pretty limited actually. pay attention to how it your body handles infection. it can handle some of it but not all of it. this is an indication, again, of constant evolution or adaptation.

for instance, there is much pollution today which causes cancer since before we did not evolve with this. so either a cure is found and the environment is cleaned up or else possibly in the future, only those who develop immunity to these poisons survive. what is limiting about nature is it reacts miminally.

there is no set plan in nature, only reacting to what is harmful to us at any given time.

Its limited, as well as being pretty mean =D

Its limited, as well as being pretty mean =D

very true