As far as "when did humans become "unnatural" ", wouldn't that have been when the first priest or witch doctor or whatever declared humans were different and special? At least, I know that the Xtian religion has a tradition of regarding humans as different, special and at the center of things. I do not know much about other world religions.
"Might is right" is also a nature's rule. "Live and let live" other one. "Survival of the fittest" or natural selection is still the other one. "Nature balances itself" still other thought. I can't understand which fits best to humans.
Last edited:
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
Nature is another word for reality. Many people (mistakenly) believe that there are other realms, apart from nature, which they refer to as supernatural. Many people (mistakenly) believe that what other people do in the bedroom is unnatural. Many people are silly.
Man is part of nature. The works of man are natural, as are the combs of honey bees, the nests of birds, and the dams of beavers. It is not possible for a person to do or be anything that is not natural. It may not be average or conventional, but it is natural.
Man is part of nature. The works of man are natural, as are the combs of honey bees, the nests of birds, and the dams of beavers. It is not possible for a person to do or be anything that is not natural. It may not be average or conventional, but it is natural.
According to most poster's views of the meaning of the word "natural" seen up thread, is there anything which isn't natural?
If not, does the word have any meaning?
I'm not going to argue that there is anything that isn't natural, except to say that there can be meaningful definitions of the term in which there is.
Humanity is a part of nature. Something I think is far too often forgotten or ignored. I have pet peeve about the use of the word animal as if it didn't apply to homo sapiens.
But there are ways in which we are new. And our affects on the biosphere are very new as well. Maybe a skyscraper and an ant hill are both as much a product of nature as each other, but there are important differences that we should remember.
Artificial doesn't mean bad. But it does mean that it's new in an evolutionary sense. No organism (including us, and excluding perhaps some viruses and bacteria) has undergone a significant portion of it's evolution since that artificial thing was brought into it's environment. And that does change things.
Sometimes for the better. Often not
I'm not arguing that "artificial" should be defined as "new". Just that what is considered artificial differs in meaningful ways from what is considered "natural", and that we should take that into account before deciding to throw the words away.
Anyway, it's the way in which human technology changes environments that we should concern ourselves with, not simply whether or not it should be called "artificial", or "natural".
If not, does the word have any meaning?
I'm not going to argue that there is anything that isn't natural, except to say that there can be meaningful definitions of the term in which there is.
Humanity is a part of nature. Something I think is far too often forgotten or ignored. I have pet peeve about the use of the word animal as if it didn't apply to homo sapiens.
But there are ways in which we are new. And our affects on the biosphere are very new as well. Maybe a skyscraper and an ant hill are both as much a product of nature as each other, but there are important differences that we should remember.
Artificial doesn't mean bad. But it does mean that it's new in an evolutionary sense. No organism (including us, and excluding perhaps some viruses and bacteria) has undergone a significant portion of it's evolution since that artificial thing was brought into it's environment. And that does change things.
Sometimes for the better. Often not
I'm not arguing that "artificial" should be defined as "new". Just that what is considered artificial differs in meaningful ways from what is considered "natural", and that we should take that into account before deciding to throw the words away.
Anyway, it's the way in which human technology changes environments that we should concern ourselves with, not simply whether or not it should be called "artificial", or "natural".
logical muse
LogMu
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,050
Isn't it just a term cynically exploited to market certain products as "better" to a casually non-critical consumer?
It's the general consensus of the people I meet at parties that "natural" foods, remedies, treatments, and exfoliating scrubs are better for them than items excluded from this category, and that it is the naturalness of these products that determines their goodnessibilitation.
It's the general consensus of the people I meet at parties that "natural" foods, remedies, treatments, and exfoliating scrubs are better for them than items excluded from this category, and that it is the naturalness of these products that determines their goodnessibilitation.
According to most poster's views of the meaning of the word "natural" seen up thread, is there anything which isn't natural?
If not, does the word have any meaning?- Roboramma
Exactly. We are conflating two arguments.
1. The irrational equation of "natural"with "good", or "beneficial".
This is silly and should be rejected as such.
2. The definition of a word. The function of words is discrimination. The reason we have the words "chocolate" and "excrement" is because on paper, two brown solids are indistinguishable. Faced with the reality, we don't need the word; we can tell them apart just fine.
If we say everything is natural, then the word ceases to have any discriminatory power and becomes as meaningless as "everything is zog."
One argument is about emotion, one about semantics. There is only a problem when we conflate the two.
Ceritus- your excrement is natural. Some of the contents may be artificial. Excrement is a waste product, not an artifact. If you mould it into a hat, bake it in an oven and wear it on your head , it's an artifact. And very nice too, I'm sure.
If not, does the word have any meaning?- Roboramma
Exactly. We are conflating two arguments.
1. The irrational equation of "natural"with "good", or "beneficial".
This is silly and should be rejected as such.
2. The definition of a word. The function of words is discrimination. The reason we have the words "chocolate" and "excrement" is because on paper, two brown solids are indistinguishable. Faced with the reality, we don't need the word; we can tell them apart just fine.
If we say everything is natural, then the word ceases to have any discriminatory power and becomes as meaningless as "everything is zog."
One argument is about emotion, one about semantics. There is only a problem when we conflate the two.
Ceritus- your excrement is natural. Some of the contents may be artificial. Excrement is a waste product, not an artifact. If you mould it into a hat, bake it in an oven and wear it on your head , it's an artifact. And very nice too, I'm sure.
So totally, dude! Like, a family that is sociopathic together stays together! Extinction is like so totally natural, dude! Let's make out like lemmings!Is greed, hate, lust, grief any less natural than generosity, love, aversion, hope? Since we inhabit this earth and we use all the resources available to us to do are bidding what could we possibly create or do that is not natural. I just don’t understand
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
I like this definition, with a minor caveat, it don't think it should be restricted to humans, by definition. Should an alien technology ever be encounter I think I would describe it as 'artificial'. There are also a few cases in higher animals where items are specifically adapted into tools, in an appropriate and anticipatory manner, to accomplish a task. This is evidence of abstract thought and intelligent design, to coin a phrase, and I would regard those items as, at least bordering on, artificial.
Last edited: