4 ms·

Yeah, this seems to be yet another of the misanthropic arguments about how nature is inherently good, and how humanity is inherently corrupting, without making

Yeah, this seems to be yet another of the misanthropic arguments about how nature is inherently good, and how humanity is inherently corrupting, without making any attempt to justify these beliefs.

jdietrich 9y ago
I think it's more narcissistic than misanthropic; it presupposes that we are something distinct and apart from the "natural" world. A bird building a nest is "natural", a human building a house is "un-natural". In this worldview, we are a fundamentally and categorically unique kind of living thing. Our behaviour is not that of a highly evolved mammal, but of a lesser god.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Santosh83 9y ago
  In as much as we resemble cancer, yes, I struggle to see how the human species works in harmony with the rest of nature, as it exists on Earth. If we want to say we're a part of nature, we should consider modifications that are improvements or at least not wholesale dismantling of planet-wide ecosystems, all in the neurotic hope that science will come in at the last moment or save the day. Or guns will. Or spaceships will. None of them seem likely to. At least not save anything beyond the dregs at the bottom of the barrel.
  - jdietrich 9y ago
    Before all the cyanobacteria turned up, earth had a nice inert atmosphere. They start with their newfangled photosynthesis and suddenly the atmosphere is full of this horribly reactive oxygen stuff. Now the planet is crawling with life, irreparably damaging the unspoilt beauty of our natural geology. You can hardly find a piece of rock on the planet that doesn't have algae or lichen all over it. Cyanobacteria ruined this planet for their own selfish ends.
    - the8472 9y ago
      Not to mention that they caused a massive extinction, eradicating most species that can't handle oxygen, except a few survivors that stuck to a few low-oxygen niches.
  - SubiculumCode 9y ago
    Nature does not work in harmony with nature. Natures eats other natures. Nature is brutal and ugly from an ethical standpoint. Eat or be eaten. Poison, trap, munch, crunch. --And one does not generally observe moral behavior among animals, one does not observe 'selfless' acts of compassion to other species. Con-specifics can be the target of some 'selfless' acts, but in fairly limited scopes. The only reasons we look at nature and see harmony and beauty are 1)we enjoy patterns 2) we enjoy colors 3)not many things eat us anymore.
    - taneq 9y ago
      Exactly. We only think empathy, kindness and gentleness are important because of our social-mammal-centric viewpoint. We only think nature is "nice" and "good" because we're largely no longer the victims of it.
rwmj 9y ago
It's a ridiculous argument because Mars is a sterile* desert, and the plan would be to fill it with nature. (* New evidence may come up in future to contradict this, and that might require a change in the plans depending on the form that Martian life takes and how widespread it is)

Yeah, this seems to be yet another of the misanthropic arguments about how nature is inherently good, and how humanity is inherently corrupting, without making any attempt to justify these beliefs.

jdietrich 9y ago

I think it's more narcissistic than misanthropic; it presupposes that we are something distinct and apart from the "natural" world. A bird building a nest is "natural", a human building a house is "un-natural". In this worldview, we are a fundamentally and categorically unique kind of living thing. Our behaviour is not that of a highly evolved mammal, but of a lesser god.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Santosh83 9y ago
In as much as we resemble cancer, yes, I struggle to see how the human species works in harmony with the rest of nature, as it exists on Earth. If we want to say we're a part of nature, we should consider modifications that are improvements or at least not wholesale dismantling of planet-wide ecosystems, all in the neurotic hope that science will come in at the last moment or save the day. Or guns will. Or spaceships will. None of them seem likely to. At least not save anything beyond the dregs at the bottom of the barrel.
- jdietrich 9y ago
  Before all the cyanobacteria turned up, earth had a nice inert atmosphere. They start with their newfangled photosynthesis and suddenly the atmosphere is full of this horribly reactive oxygen stuff. Now the planet is crawling with life, irreparably damaging the unspoilt beauty of our natural geology. You can hardly find a piece of rock on the planet that doesn't have algae or lichen all over it. Cyanobacteria ruined this planet for their own selfish ends.
  - the8472 9y ago
    Not to mention that they caused a massive extinction, eradicating most species that can't handle oxygen, except a few survivors that stuck to a few low-oxygen niches.
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  Nature does not work in harmony with nature. Natures eats other natures. Nature is brutal and ugly from an ethical standpoint. Eat or be eaten. Poison, trap, munch, crunch. --And one does not generally observe moral behavior among animals, one does not observe 'selfless' acts of compassion to other species. Con-specifics can be the target of some 'selfless' acts, but in fairly limited scopes. The only reasons we look at nature and see harmony and beauty are 1)we enjoy patterns 2) we enjoy colors 3)not many things eat us anymore.
  - taneq 9y ago
    Exactly. We only think empathy, kindness and gentleness are important because of our social-mammal-centric viewpoint. We only think nature is "nice" and "good" because we're largely no longer the victims of it.

rwmj 9y ago

It's a ridiculous argument because Mars is a sterile* desert, and the plan would be to fill it with nature. (* New evidence may come up in future to contradict this, and that might require a change in the plans depending on the form that Martian life takes and how widespread it is)