4 ms·

The reductionism take seems to be fairly popular on HN in general, and it's kind of frustrating. You can technically make that argument that humans are natural

The reductionism take seems to be fairly popular on HN in general, and it's kind of frustrating. You can technically make that argument that humans are natural and therefore all of their impacts are also natural, but the fact remains that when shown a picture of a forest and a cityscape, everyone will instinctively know which one is more natural. Nature is a useful concept. There are mental health benefits to being around nature[0], there are physical benefits of being around less pollution, there are future-of-the-human-race benefits to keeping things closer to the status quo than we're on pace to do with global climate change. We are changing our planet, in some ways positively and in some ways detrimentally, but it's pedantic to argue that this change is "natural". [0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study-being-around-trees-and-other-greenery-may-help-teens-stave-off-depression/2018/01/19/252df102-fc92-11e7-ad8c-ecbb62019393_story.html?utm_term=.e70665481eb6 https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ar-jan 8y ago
The issue is that even a huge ecosystem like the Amazon, which we tend to consider "natural", has in fact been heavily shaped by humans.
- jrochkind1 8y ago
  Exactly. OR other animals! But "the Amazon" is a good example, because people in European cultures also have a bad habit of considering "primitive" people to be _themselves_ "natural", with implications including: wherever and whatever way they live now (or when Europeans first contacted them) is where and how they have "always" lived, with no history of cultural change or migration; they have had no effect on the ecosystems they live in, which have also always been exactly as they are now. Usually none of that is true. Even ecosystems _without humans_ (and before human carbon-producing industry) _changed over time_. Ones with humans have, as a trend, changed even more, true, but for _as long as there have been humans_, way before modern carbon-producing tech. But again, this is not meant to be a feel-good "so what we are now doing is fine." Nope, we're totally fucking things up, at an accelerated rate and order of magnitude greater scale. But not necessarily a categorical/qualitative difference.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  I see your point... However, fortunately, we are still able to tell the difference between a city block and the Amazon rainforest. The distinction between the two is still meaningful.
wilg 8y ago
It's useful to have a concept like "nature" to help describe humans' impact on our environment, for sure. I think it's probably less useful when trying to determine what humans should do or expressing a value judgement on human behavior. I'm not necessarily convinced that the "natural" state of something is better than some alternative that humans might come up with. I don't think you need to invoke "nature" to make the points you mention above. We can talk about the mental health benefits of being outside, or among trees, or just in a peaceful environment in general. We can talk about reversing global warming in many more practical ways: humanitarian, economic, as a conservation issue, etc. "Nature" is a catch-all term, and its useful in that context, but if interpreted as an inherent good it can be misused to support racism, pseudomedicine, and other really bad stuff. Since it's not necessary to make a case for the good stuff, and it can be a big part of the case for lots of bad stuff, it might be worth making the effort to be more precise.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ar-jan 8y ago

The issue is that even a huge ecosystem like the Amazon, which we tend to consider "natural", has in fact been heavily shaped by humans.

jrochkind1 8y ago
Exactly. OR other animals! But "the Amazon" is a good example, because people in European cultures also have a bad habit of considering "primitive" people to be _themselves_ "natural", with implications including: wherever and whatever way they live now (or when Europeans first contacted them) is where and how they have "always" lived, with no history of cultural change or migration; they have had no effect on the ecosystems they live in, which have also always been exactly as they are now. Usually none of that is true. Even ecosystems _without humans_ (and before human carbon-producing industry) _changed over time_. Ones with humans have, as a trend, changed even more, true, but for _as long as there have been humans_, way before modern carbon-producing tech. But again, this is not meant to be a feel-good "so what we are now doing is fine." Nope, we're totally fucking things up, at an accelerated rate and order of magnitude greater scale. But not necessarily a categorical/qualitative difference.
dwaltrip 8y ago
I see your point... However, fortunately, we are still able to tell the difference between a city block and the Amazon rainforest. The distinction between the two is still meaningful.

wilg 8y ago

It's useful to have a concept like "nature" to help describe humans' impact on our environment, for sure. I think it's probably less useful when trying to determine what humans should do or expressing a value judgement on human behavior. I'm not necessarily convinced that the "natural" state of something is better than some alternative that humans might come up with. I don't think you need to invoke "nature" to make the points you mention above. We can talk about the mental health benefits of being outside, or among trees, or just in a peaceful environment in general. We can talk about reversing global warming in many more practical ways: humanitarian, economic, as a conservation issue, etc. "Nature" is a catch-all term, and its useful in that context, but if interpreted as an inherent good it can be misused to support racism, pseudomedicine, and other really bad stuff. Since it's not necessary to make a case for the good stuff, and it can be a big part of the case for lots of bad stuff, it might be worth making the effort to be more precise.