What is Natural?

Yes. Even further, I think that humans are the only ones who view themselves as anything. Yes. No, I don’t even think they think of our creations, period. I dunno, why don’t you ask them. Oh that’s right . you can’t. Kinda makes me feel special. Perhaps the native americans would still be lacking the wheel and shooting arrows. This is the kind of technological limitations that occur when limit ourselves to using only natural things, meaning things that nature doesn’t need us for making. Is it a thing that couldn’t be produced by nature without the help of the animal?I could use an example.The dam the beaver makes could occur without the beaver so I would consider that a natural thing. A bird’s nest looks an awful lot like tumble weed, I mean, nature can tangle sticks up without birds so I’d consider them as natural.Now, lets assume someone comes up with an example of something an animal makes that nature cannot make on its own. Depending on the example, I either say that the thing is unnatural and that non-human animals can make unnatural things too. Or, I might think that because the thing is only made from naturally occuring materials, that the thing is natural, and the animal just arranged some stuff in a way that nature couldn't do without that animal. I dunno, it depends on the example.One more thing. What about crazy stuff like spider silk. I mean, nature can't produce spider silk without the spider, but I'd still consider it to be a natural substance. I' not exactly sure why, but prolly becuase it is produced through a biological process it is like nature is making it and not the spider. Again, I would have to ask the animals on this one and because they cannot even discuss this with me makes me feel even more special.Also, I'd like to know what you think is the reason that people think they are removed from nature. You could just reply to Message 15.

I was pretty sure that I addressed that already. Please, tell me where I wasn't clear and I'll try to reword things to make it more understandable. Message 13Spider silk is natural for the same reason cars, atomic bombs, space shuttles and the like. But they were happy, and the Earth was healthy, so who's to say they were doing anything wrong? Look at the things we do that inhibit our advancement. Bannings on cloning, for example.Trék

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

You're treating meaning of words like they're hard and fast entities, divorced of purposefulness or utility."Natural" is a word that we use to separate what Nature does without us, vs. what it does with us in there. I thought Catholic Scientists summarized that well.That's a useful distinction to make. We use information about the causes of certain things, such as global warming, in order ot try to solve the problem. Natural/unnatural are simply words to help delineate "not caused by humans" / "caused by humans". It's a USEFUL distinction to make. I think that's a separte issue, one far greater than simple word usage. We don't think that way because of some word usage; we use the words because we think that way.It's a whole other question to ask WHY people feel divorced from nature.

This is potentially heading off topic but there is at least a reasonable suspicion that they were responsible for a major blip of local extinctions. The earth took a beating.

You didn’t answer the question. The question is why? Why do you think that humans think that they are removed from nature? and that reason is?I see a huge difference between spider silk and a car. This is where I’m trying to go with this. It seems to me that there is a good place to draw a line between natural and unnatural, and that is human involvement. I mean, WE are the ones defining the word in the first place so it might as well be based on us. Here is what wikipedia says about it: So again, the distinction can be made so where do you think this discussion should go? You said it comes down to humans thinking they are removed form nature. Why do we think that? I think it is because we are. The Europeans!? . .But this isn’t what this discussion is about so lets not put too much into it.

OK Trek...Mr. Dictionary to the rescue:na”ture : the inherent quality or basic constitution of a person or thing 2 : kind, sort 3 : disposition, temperament 4 : the physical universe 5 : one's natural instincts or way of life ; also : primitive state 6 : natural scenery or environment
nat”u”ral adj 1 : determined by nature : inborn, innate <~ ability> 2 : born 3 : illegitimate 4 : human 5 : of or relating to nature 6 : not artificial 7 : being simple and sincere : not affected 8 : lifelike 9 : being neither sharp nor flat syn ingenuous, naive, unsophisticated, artless, guileless ” nat”u”ral”ness n
ar”ti”fi”cial adj 1 : produced by art rather than nature; also : made by humans to imitate nature 2 : not genuine : feigned ” ar”ti”fi”ci”al”i”ty \-'fi-sh-"a-l-t\ n ” ar”ti”fi”cial”ly adv ” ar”ti”fi”cial”ness n

​

There seems to be a clear distinction between natural and artificial. Is there a difference between the invention of a dam by beavers and the technological innovation of Hoover Dam?

Okay, so I consulted Webster, and it turns out that nature is defined as all that is seperate from Man.Now I have to wonder why we think we should seperate ourselves, and whether or not that seperation is a good thing.Trék

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

Words are useful. The first question is why it is USEFUL to separate ourselves from nature.That's all you can examine by looking at words. Why a term was useful to be created.I also happen to think that we also separate ourselves from nature, as I mentioned there as well. I think that happens for the same reasons that we often believe in dualism between mind and body; there's a thread here somewhere about that. I looked but I couldn't find it.Is it good? It depends on your goals. Either way, I think it was inevitable. If we truly see ourselves as part of nature, then we don't even create a concept like "nature". And I think that would lead to our destruction of it; the ability of our species to adapt to many different habitats, to overcome environmental conditions to multiply... without a concept of nature, I believe we'd be doomed to change it.And with a concept of nature, we westerners seem to have failed to realize the utility in preserving it. Seems some other cultures might have done a better job of that, but I don't know.I think ultimately the most hopeful thing is if we have a concept of nature, and we choose on how to proceed. We can proceed by trying to preserve it and preserve life as we know it, or we can go Nausicaa on it and intentionally modify, even destroy it, to stabalize a new kind of life.Judging good or bad is just in the eyes of the beholder.AbE: Changed to sound less crankyThis message has been edited by Ben, Tuesday, 2006/01/24 09:25 AM

There seem to be two parts of your reply that I'd like to address. One of them is probably slightly off topic but they're related, I think.First, the issue with whether our ancestors were responsible for extinctions is debatable. Historically, game hunting is notoriously unreliable as a food source. In fact, the majority of the source of food is gathered or caught by women, somewhere on the range of 70% for most hunter and gatherer societies. There is no reason to suspect that pre-historic hunters were more successful than modern day H/G societies and it is more likely that climatic changes had more of an affect on animal populations than humans did. That isn't to say that humans have not had an effect on animal populations and did affect the environment locally, and sometimes disasterously; just not to the level of extinction.Second, If I am understanding Invictus's OP, then even if humans were responsible for local extinctions, he might question whether this is just a natural event. Even changing their environment in order to entice favorite animal populations to browse might be considered natural, as other animal populations do similar things.

If we consider ourselves as just another part of nature and everything we do as a natural event, then we remove the responsibility for our actions, as a species. Unless you don’t think that we should let nature take its course. It you think we should, and that we are nature, then every course we take is nature’s, no matter how bad of a course we get ourselves on.

I think perhaps you misunderstood my post. I was commenting on Nosy's comment and I was just relating what I thought might be Invictus's OP question. I am not sure what my position is on Invictus's OP, but it is probably not a yes or no issue for me.

Maybe we don't need to so much feel our position as a part of nature as we need to feel the effects nature has on us.Really, though, looking at this, it comes down to the condition of the planet, and why it is in its condition. I mean, if we considered the planet to be in good shape, we wouldn't have a problem either way. It's only when we start realizing that the planet is in rough shape that we really need to consider our role and our position.So, what is our role? What is our position? What should we do? Should we just do what we've been doing and hope it all goes okay, or should we start to fix things? Which brings up the question: is anything really broken? Is there anything to fix?Trék

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

I think our effect on nature is more important than nature’s effect on us. I think we have limited, if not eliminated, a majority of the effects that nature has on humans. Yeah, I don’t think its in as bad of shape as the whiny hippies make it out to be . but I do realize that it could be better. We are the keepers of the planet. We’ve come so far as to be unnatural, by our own definition. We shouldn’t let it go to hell but we should also let nature take its course. If/when we realize that global warming is a natural phenomenon unaffected by man’s previous actions then we should avoid trying to stop it or push it in any direction. Sometimes when we try to help we just end up fucking it up even more, ever here of invasive exotic species? Now that I think about it, the condition of our planet is off topic.So . What do you think is the cause for humans to feel they are removed from nature?

I strongly dislike the rigid line being drawn between "natural" and "artificial". I recognize that some very sharp posters have already stuck up dictionary definitions and I'm not denying their existence (not dissing your Webster's!) But I think they are misleading.Here's an example. By most of the definitions we have seen, human feces is "artificial" whereas cow manure is "natural". Cats teaching their kittens to hunt is "natural" whereas kicking when the doctor taps you is "artificial". This seems senseless to me.I would prefer a distinction that is more meaningful and recognizes the fuzzy area I am pointing at. I would argue that chimps using sticks to dig up ants is (just barely) artificial. It's something they are doing intentionally, cleverly, something they may have more or less skill with, something they can teach other chimps, something not all chimps have learned.I wouldn't argue that spider-silk or coral reefs are "artificial" in the same sense because I see no signs of forethought or developable talent. On the other hand birds building nests, beavers building dams, things like this that involve manipulating the external world to improve the animal's situation and can be done more or less skillfully depending on the animal's background, might be artificial in this sense I am trying to promote. They might not be too, it's hard to say how much is just instinct and how much is the beginnings of intellect.If an elephant grabs a stick and uses it to whack you on the head playfully, it might have been a random gesture the first time. But when she does it again and again, and the other elephants start doing it, and the clowns start demanding hazard pay because the elephants have independently taught themselves a new trick that has caused some accidents, I think that is artificial because it is "by artifice". They are doing it intentionally, cleverly, reproducably, and transmissably.If we insist on a clear line between natural and artificial, I would prefer to have it such that instinctive stuff like spiders pooping silk or people crying when you smack them hard enough be the natural, and intellectual stuff like feline hunting practices and human manufacturing developments be the artificial. I don't see a problem in expanding the "natural" to include a few human functions so long as we expand the "artificial" to include a small number of nonhuman functions.It reminds us that at least some of the animals are people and I think this makes up for possibly encouraging us to remember we are animals.

Excellent points. At the end, you almost seem to be driving in the direction of Charles Darwin, and his realization that we were seperated from the other animals not by kind, but by degree. Seeing animal characteristics in humans and human characteristics in animals, shows that rather well. Agreed! We can always make a distinction at some point. If we are to make a distinction, I would agree that the distinction be made at that point where instinct crosses into intent. I guess we could look at it this way: when we move our arms, we don't actually have to make a conscious decision to do so. Writing this post on the other hand does require conscious thought. In a sense, we could consider it to be those things that we are not born able to do, but then we run into problems like walking, and such. This gets me too. I mean, why can I deficate in a river, and it's bad, but when a cat lets it out, there's nothing wrong with it? Is human feces that bad for the environment? I realize too much is bad, but a wee bit here and there can't do much harm. Once again, I agree that if there is a distinction, it should be made between instinct and intent. So, the silk itself might be considered natural, but the web artificial, because it requires forethought.TrékEdit: fixed codeThis message has been edited by Invictus, 01/24/2006 07:00 PM

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species