3 ms·

Considering our energy needs it's not possible for large amounts of people to cohabitate with nature without altering nature. So yes, the mere (permanent) exist

Considering our energy needs it's not possible for large amounts of people to cohabitate with nature without altering nature. So yes, the mere (permanent) existence of humans in some area will inevitably alter nature and thus not be what we consider pristine nature anymore.

throwanem 7y ago
Sure. My point is that "pristine" is a meaningless concept here - any life that exists in a given environment will alter that environment to some degree; that's one of the things life does - and that I think the habit of valuing this specter of "pristineness" points to a failure to distinguish between the habit of any form of life to modify its environment, and the human habit of altering ours in ways we know are noxious and still do anyway. My other point is that "nature" is a meaningless concept, too, and actively harmful in that it gives us an excuse to conceive of ourselves as essentially apart from our environment, and much more able to control the extent of its effects on us than we demonstrably are. Sure, we can keep the rain and cold at bay. But if climate change isn't enough evidence that our power over our environment has hard limits, the current pandemic sure as hell should be - to say nothing of the next one, or the one after that. "Nature" is something that's supposed to be out there, away from us, on the other side of a wall or a window, except when we choose for it not to be. "Nature" is an enemy. The trouble is that, looked at that way, we inevitably find Horace was right, all those centuries ago: drive her out with a pitchfork all you like, she'll always come running back.
- the8472 7y ago
  I'm not sure what you're trying to say. There clearly exist areas that are more and those that are less impacted by human presence. When people talk about nature they often mean just the latter parts while perhaps considering engineered ecosystems part of "the environment" not necessarily part of "[pristine] nature". Having different words for these different things is useful. You can quibble about which words best fit them, but the distinction doesn't go away.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    "Nature" isn't a word that's useful for expressing position along the continuum you describe, though. Instead it describes a sharp discontinuity that doesn't actually exist. The resulting mental model can't help but be inaccurate - and accidentally so, which means the simplification can't be controlled to avoid impairing the utility of the model. I'd categorize the resulting conceptual error alongside the one that leads people to believe in creationism because camera eyes like ours seem too complicated to have arisen by chance. They aren't, but that's a thought you need the right conceptual tools to build. Without them, you might never get there. Ultimately, what I'm saying is that "nature" is likewise the wrong tool with which to build thoughts about how humans interact with our environment.
    - the8472 7y ago
      Where is the discontinuity implied? It seems like there is a continuum between entirely engineered environments and largely untouched ones. The latter is considered natural, hence "nature" as an expression of one part of the continuum. Of course there are other uses of the word, such as "nature finds a way" meaning that biological life will adapt to engineered environments too. But this the usual inadequacy of human language, the same word can have multiple, even conflicting meanings. Anyway, if you wish to convey some important concept better you should name it so it can be discussed instead of just pointing at other concepts and declaring them inadequate. This is what confuses me about this discussion, the lack of proposed improvements.
      - throwanem 7y ago
        How much modification equals not "nature" any more, though? It's like trying to define how many grains of sand make a heap. The difference is that nobody imagines a heap of sand is anything but a heap of sand. We're already talking in terms of a better concept, that of an explicitly understood continuum between totally unmodified environments and totally human-built ones. That is the improvement, because it accurately models reality in a way that an ill-defined concept of "nature" does not, and avoids lending itself to implicit confusions like that between "natural" and "desirable" discussed elsewhere in these comments. There are desirable aspects to built environments, and desirable aspects to unbuilt ones, and undesirable aspects of both as well. A maximally desirable human environment incorporates both, and I don't see how sloppy analysis of the sort encouraged by "nature" makes such an environment easier to attain.
black_puppydog 7y ago
You're falling into the same trap there that GP was pointing out. Yes, any number of humans (starting at 1) will alter the state of their surroundings. But that doesn't make the surroundings "unnatural" in any way. It just happens that modern human societies tend to alter their environment in a way that it loses many of the properties that we long for, yet somehow we don't seem capable of changing the way we shape our environments in a different way. Instead we declare "that over there" to be "nature" which is to de desired and "this here" to be "the civilized world" and most people literally can't imagine any correspondence of the two.
msla 7y ago
> Considering our energy needs it's not possible for large amounts of people to cohabitate with nature without altering nature. And when you realize you can say the same thing about ants and termites, you will know what the person you're talking to is talking about. Making the distinction "Human vs Nature" implies Humans are special, set apart from any other species; even if you say that Humans are bad, being especially bad is still being special, and set apart.

throwanem 7y ago

Sure. My point is that "pristine" is a meaningless concept here - any life that exists in a given environment will alter that environment to some degree; that's one of the things life does - and that I think the habit of valuing this specter of "pristineness" points to a failure to distinguish between the habit of any form of life to modify its environment, and the human habit of altering ours in ways we know are noxious and still do anyway. My other point is that "nature" is a meaningless concept, too, and actively harmful in that it gives us an excuse to conceive of ourselves as essentially apart from our environment, and much more able to control the extent of its effects on us than we demonstrably are. Sure, we can keep the rain and cold at bay. But if climate change isn't enough evidence that our power over our environment has hard limits, the current pandemic sure as hell should be - to say nothing of the next one, or the one after that. "Nature" is something that's supposed to be out there, away from us, on the other side of a wall or a window, except when we choose for it not to be. "Nature" is an enemy. The trouble is that, looked at that way, we inevitably find Horace was right, all those centuries ago: drive her out with a pitchfork all you like, she'll always come running back.

the8472 7y ago
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. There clearly exist areas that are more and those that are less impacted by human presence. When people talk about nature they often mean just the latter parts while perhaps considering engineered ecosystems part of "the environment" not necessarily part of "[pristine] nature". Having different words for these different things is useful. You can quibble about which words best fit them, but the distinction doesn't go away.
- throwanem 7y ago
  "Nature" isn't a word that's useful for expressing position along the continuum you describe, though. Instead it describes a sharp discontinuity that doesn't actually exist. The resulting mental model can't help but be inaccurate - and accidentally so, which means the simplification can't be controlled to avoid impairing the utility of the model. I'd categorize the resulting conceptual error alongside the one that leads people to believe in creationism because camera eyes like ours seem too complicated to have arisen by chance. They aren't, but that's a thought you need the right conceptual tools to build. Without them, you might never get there. Ultimately, what I'm saying is that "nature" is likewise the wrong tool with which to build thoughts about how humans interact with our environment.
  - the8472 7y ago
    Where is the discontinuity implied? It seems like there is a continuum between entirely engineered environments and largely untouched ones. The latter is considered natural, hence "nature" as an expression of one part of the continuum. Of course there are other uses of the word, such as "nature finds a way" meaning that biological life will adapt to engineered environments too. But this the usual inadequacy of human language, the same word can have multiple, even conflicting meanings. Anyway, if you wish to convey some important concept better you should name it so it can be discussed instead of just pointing at other concepts and declaring them inadequate. This is what confuses me about this discussion, the lack of proposed improvements.
    - throwanem 7y ago
      How much modification equals not "nature" any more, though? It's like trying to define how many grains of sand make a heap. The difference is that nobody imagines a heap of sand is anything but a heap of sand. We're already talking in terms of a better concept, that of an explicitly understood continuum between totally unmodified environments and totally human-built ones. That is the improvement, because it accurately models reality in a way that an ill-defined concept of "nature" does not, and avoids lending itself to implicit confusions like that between "natural" and "desirable" discussed elsewhere in these comments. There are desirable aspects to built environments, and desirable aspects to unbuilt ones, and undesirable aspects of both as well. A maximally desirable human environment incorporates both, and I don't see how sloppy analysis of the sort encouraged by "nature" makes such an environment easier to attain.

black_puppydog 7y ago

You're falling into the same trap there that GP was pointing out. Yes, any number of humans (starting at 1) will alter the state of their surroundings. But that doesn't make the surroundings "unnatural" in any way. It just happens that modern human societies tend to alter their environment in a way that it loses many of the properties that we long for, yet somehow we don't seem capable of changing the way we shape our environments in a different way. Instead we declare "that over there" to be "nature" which is to de desired and "this here" to be "the civilized world" and most people literally can't imagine any correspondence of the two.

msla 7y ago

> Considering our energy needs it's not possible for large amounts of people to cohabitate with nature without altering nature. And when you realize you can say the same thing about ants and termites, you will know what the person you're talking to is talking about. Making the distinction "Human vs Nature" implies Humans are special, set apart from any other species; even if you say that Humans are bad, being especially bad is still being special, and set apart.