By most of the definitions we have seen, human feces is "artificial" whereas cow manure is "natural".
I anticipated something like this. To address to the point, I think that something created by a biological process, whether it requires a human or not, should be considered natural . even sex . and I’m catholic. I don’t exactly fit the mold so don’t write me off too quickly.
I would prefer a distinction that is more meaningful and recognizes the fuzzy area I am pointing at.
Most of us prefer concrete definitions but they just aren’t always possible. To bring it to the scientific realm, consider the word species, there’s some fuzzy areas here too. Wolfs and dogs for example.
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.
I agree.
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.
I agree here too that the instinct/intellect distinction is hard to put a finger on. But, in the same way that almost every thing that humans do could be considered natural, almost everything that animals do could be considered instinctual. From an evolutionary point of view, every beaver that lacked the instinct to make a damn either died or failed to reproduce, no intellect required.
I think that is artificial because it is "by artifice". They are doing it intentionally, cleverly, reproducably, and transmissably.
Again, and I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you could attribute all this to instinct in the same way that you can equate all human behavior as natural. I think we’re getting into the opinion realm, where its all in how you look at it and how you want to consider it.
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.
I see a lot of human functions as natural but I don’t see the need to bring non-humans into the artificial group. Especially if we just keep the definition of unnatural to be a human thing.
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.
What animal are people? (you mean just homo sapiens?) I’ll never forget that we are animals but I also consider us to be removed from nature and special. I think this is why I have a fascination with skulls, because it reminds me that we are, in fact, another animal, even if we do seem to be different from the rest of them.
.
.
™ Version 4.2