6 ms·

Humans are a part of nature. Everything we do and all our technology is based on the laws of nature. Therefore by definition, everything we do is natural. Anima

Humans are a part of nature. Everything we do and all our technology is based on the laws of nature. Therefore by definition, everything we do is natural. Animals in general try to create an environment that is suitable for them - whether it be be birds building a nest, or beavers building a dam. Humans are just really, really good at modifying their environment, but we are still a part of nature.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
What humans do stops being natural when it is no longer person-power but powered machines. That gives huge amounts of leverage. You would consider a car, or a chainsaw natural? I wouldn't.
- ianai 8y ago
  Humans can light the earth on fire with thousands of nuclear explosions. Almost nothing would survive. I’d say we’re well past natural. But your ways less extreme.
  - x3n0ph3n3 8y ago
    An asteroid can hit the earth and do the same thing. Is it not natural either?
    - User23 8y ago
      And cyanobacteria transformed the entire atmosphere, to such a degree that almost everything else died out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
  - jedmeyers 8y ago
    A long long time ago some organisms “polluted” the athmosphere with oxygen. It wasn’t a natural event in your opinion?
- x3n0ph3n3 8y ago
  Some of us believe that artificial is merely of a subset of natural and saying that they are disjoint is a kind of naturalistic fallacy.
11235813213455 8y ago
Humans are natural, and just another species among animals, that's true. But they have a very different responsibility since they completely control the rest of the ecosystem. Every grown-up human individual must be responsible and preserve the complex balance in the ecosystem
chongli 8y ago
If everything we do is natural, why even have the word?
- whytaka 8y ago
  It is a leftover piece from our arrogant past when we considered our image a reflection of the divine. It is now just a way to say, "not human". Unfortunately, the embedded arrogance is still perpetuated.
  - incompatible 8y ago
    Is it possible to make a distinction between things that are designed, with intelligence, and things that have obtained their form through haphazard forces or the actions of organisms following their genetically pre-programmed behaviour? Even if "nature" vs "artificial" are not the right words for it?
- jrochkind1 8y ago
  Why do we have words for, oh, "phrenology" or "phlogiston"? Or, you know, um, "Caucasian". We've got plenty of words whose referents aren't sound concepts.
  - Retra 8y ago
    Naturalness is a useful abstraction. It contrasts things we will interact with through discovery to those we interact with through design. It is a sound concept, it is just biased to be human-centric.
whytaka 8y ago
I wholeheartedly agree. The concept of 'nature' in contrast to 'the human' seems to me something leftover from when we determined ourselves divine and separate from the rest. It's a word with arrogance deeply embedded in it. The most useful meaning of this word is simply, "Not Human". But the human belongs to the natural.
yummypaint 8y ago
This line of reasoning appears frequently, but it misses the concept people are referring to when they say nature. Words are defined through their use, and no person would describe a parking lot or the inside of a building as a natural environment. I think most people picture a place without human activity at all when they imagine a fully "natural" environment, like an island thats never had people on it. In this interpretation, people living naturally would cause their environment to deviate minimally from how it would be in their absence. We are currently the direct cause of an ongoing mass extinction. We have yanked the surface of the planet so far from equilibrium that it may never return to its previous state. We are from being a part of nature.
- longerthoughts 8y ago
  When was the planet at equilibrium? This is not a rhetorical question and I don't advocate for the destruction (or indifference to destruction) of the environment. But what is the natural state of the planet?
  - ravenstine 8y ago
    Equilibrium is a delusion of humans whose lives are too short, and whose brains are ill-equipped to comprehend the universal constant of change.
- ploubus 8y ago
  Nature is and never has been equilibrium. Nature is chaos.
- whytaka 8y ago
  I agree with this definition of words and their utility, but I also agree with GPs definition of nature. Now we have two running definitions and they contradict, thus a debate ensues. Political debates are often a matter of warring sides trying to establish their meaning of a word over the other's. Thankfully, we also have a reasonable expectation in the use of words in that they map to something real. The broader the internal consistency of that word, the more 'authoritative' it should be - although, admittedly, this is just my opinion. (Politics will surely have some say about this.) On defining nature, we have witnessed two definitions. 1. Not human. 2. All of the cosmos. Those who appreciate the theory of evolution, I think, will have a harder time determining where the threshold between human and nature would be.
pygy_ 8y ago
This is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis at work. The way common language defines "nature" doesn't map well to reality and we end up developing contorted thoughts rather than re-evaluating the tools we use to think. I like to contrast wild/raw stuff to artificial stuff, both of which are part of nature. Many things that are commonly considered "natural" are actually far from wild. Fields in the countryside? Artificial. Vegetables and farm animals? Artificial, even before GMO. Etc... That being said, the way we've shaped the planet these last 200 years is radical, and possibly too radical for our own survival. Fossil fuel gave us an immense power and we probably didn't use it wisely. We'll see.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

What humans do stops being natural when it is no longer person-power but powered machines. That gives huge amounts of leverage. You would consider a car, or a chainsaw natural? I wouldn't.

ianai 8y ago
Humans can light the earth on fire with thousands of nuclear explosions. Almost nothing would survive. I’d say we’re well past natural. But your ways less extreme.
- x3n0ph3n3 8y ago
  An asteroid can hit the earth and do the same thing. Is it not natural either?
  - User23 8y ago
    And cyanobacteria transformed the entire atmosphere, to such a degree that almost everything else died out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
- jedmeyers 8y ago
  A long long time ago some organisms “polluted” the athmosphere with oxygen. It wasn’t a natural event in your opinion?
x3n0ph3n3 8y ago
Some of us believe that artificial is merely of a subset of natural and saying that they are disjoint is a kind of naturalistic fallacy.

11235813213455 8y ago

Humans are natural, and just another species among animals, that's true. But they have a very different responsibility since they completely control the rest of the ecosystem. Every grown-up human individual must be responsible and preserve the complex balance in the ecosystem

chongli 8y ago

If everything we do is natural, why even have the word?

whytaka 8y ago
It is a leftover piece from our arrogant past when we considered our image a reflection of the divine. It is now just a way to say, "not human". Unfortunately, the embedded arrogance is still perpetuated.
- incompatible 8y ago
  Is it possible to make a distinction between things that are designed, with intelligence, and things that have obtained their form through haphazard forces or the actions of organisms following their genetically pre-programmed behaviour? Even if "nature" vs "artificial" are not the right words for it?
jrochkind1 8y ago
Why do we have words for, oh, "phrenology" or "phlogiston"? Or, you know, um, "Caucasian". We've got plenty of words whose referents aren't sound concepts.
- Retra 8y ago
  Naturalness is a useful abstraction. It contrasts things we will interact with through discovery to those we interact with through design. It is a sound concept, it is just biased to be human-centric.

whytaka 8y ago

I wholeheartedly agree. The concept of 'nature' in contrast to 'the human' seems to me something leftover from when we determined ourselves divine and separate from the rest. It's a word with arrogance deeply embedded in it. The most useful meaning of this word is simply, "Not Human". But the human belongs to the natural.

yummypaint 8y ago

This line of reasoning appears frequently, but it misses the concept people are referring to when they say nature. Words are defined through their use, and no person would describe a parking lot or the inside of a building as a natural environment. I think most people picture a place without human activity at all when they imagine a fully "natural" environment, like an island thats never had people on it. In this interpretation, people living naturally would cause their environment to deviate minimally from how it would be in their absence. We are currently the direct cause of an ongoing mass extinction. We have yanked the surface of the planet so far from equilibrium that it may never return to its previous state. We are from being a part of nature.

longerthoughts 8y ago
When was the planet at equilibrium? This is not a rhetorical question and I don't advocate for the destruction (or indifference to destruction) of the environment. But what is the natural state of the planet?
- ravenstine 8y ago
  Equilibrium is a delusion of humans whose lives are too short, and whose brains are ill-equipped to comprehend the universal constant of change.
ploubus 8y ago
Nature is and never has been equilibrium. Nature is chaos.
whytaka 8y ago
I agree with this definition of words and their utility, but I also agree with GPs definition of nature. Now we have two running definitions and they contradict, thus a debate ensues. Political debates are often a matter of warring sides trying to establish their meaning of a word over the other's. Thankfully, we also have a reasonable expectation in the use of words in that they map to something real. The broader the internal consistency of that word, the more 'authoritative' it should be - although, admittedly, this is just my opinion. (Politics will surely have some say about this.) On defining nature, we have witnessed two definitions. 1. Not human. 2. All of the cosmos. Those who appreciate the theory of evolution, I think, will have a harder time determining where the threshold between human and nature would be.

pygy_ 8y ago

This is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis at work. The way common language defines "nature" doesn't map well to reality and we end up developing contorted thoughts rather than re-evaluating the tools we use to think. I like to contrast wild/raw stuff to artificial stuff, both of which are part of nature. Many things that are commonly considered "natural" are actually far from wild. Fields in the countryside? Artificial. Vegetables and farm animals? Artificial, even before GMO. Etc... That being said, the way we've shaped the planet these last 200 years is radical, and possibly too radical for our own survival. Fossil fuel gave us an immense power and we probably didn't use it wisely. We'll see.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]