5 ms·

How can you possibly even say "We are not Nature"? Of course we are Nature. We came to being the exact same way every other current living species did, thru n

by cubano 6y ago

How can you possibly even say "We are not Nature"? Of course we are Nature. We came to being the exact same way every other current living species did, thru natural selection. So then how can we be living, as you say, somehow outside this "Nature" you speak of? Hell, I know I may be in a small minority who says, by definition, nothing that we do is "wrong" because we are simply doing what our brains, which are 100% a product of this Nature, are telling us to do. Post-modernism is quick to tell us there are no absolute rights and wrongs...that only culture makes it so. So why then can some say that its immoral to create and study these creatures that our nature-created brains have led us to create?

jonplackett 6y ago
This is really an argument about the definition of natural isn’t it. We’re from nature but personally I believe humans are something different. We’re the only animal with choice - that we know of at least, and if you believe in free will, which some people don’t of course.
- linkdd 6y ago
  It's not a matter of what we believe, but it's a matter of facts. Humans comes from nature, and the building blocks of a human are the same as everything else in the universe (as far as we know). Recent studies have shown that "choice" is made before we are even conscious of it (so byebye free will?), and no studies have shown that we are the only living creature able to make "choices". "Humans are special", "Humans are different", "Humans are smarter" is the perfect example of arrogance and ignorance of humans.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    It is a matter of definitions, and it's a matter of avoiding a fallacy. Just because "we come from nature", doesn't mean we're bound to whatever patterns of behavior we observe in animals, and it especially doesn't mean the "nature" tells us what we should or shouldn't do. The world of non-human living things is a very bad place to look for lessons in morality. "Humans are different" isn't arrogance, it's observable reality. And we need some words to separate the categories of "things done / caused by humans" vs "things done / caused by everything else" - hence the common meaning of "natural" and "nature". > the building blocks of a human are the same as everything else in the universe (as far as we know). Building blocks of everything in the universe are the same, but there's still meaningful difference between things.
  - animal_spirits 6y ago
    Humans _are_ special, humans _are_ smarter. While yes we do share common ancestors with chimpanzees and other apes, there is something incredibly different between us and the chimpanzee. I just got off of an airplane thinking how insane it is humans can build these tools. We humans wield great power over other life. With great power comes great responsibility, and just as much as we should humbly recognize our origins and common ancestors with other life, we should also recognize the immense responsibilities over other life that we have.
  - jonplackett 6y ago
    By that definition how is anything ever unnatural? Everything comes from the Big Bang so everything is natural?
pengstrom 6y ago
Yet you are able to learn, reason and communicate. That potential is why we're not hunters and gatherers still.
schrodinger 6y ago
I believe the point is that “the interest of humans is not the same as the interest of nature.” We are part of nature, but not referentially equal. “Nature” may not care what happens to the human species, but we do!
- erickj 6y ago
  Exactly. Well said.
MinusGix 6y ago
In part this is arguing over a definition of nature. You're going for the obvious "We are part of nature because nature created us and we work within the system." while they're going for the idea of it being more strictly influenced by evolutionary change which we have the ability to 'escape' (escape in the sense that we can go farther than an animal can due to being able to design larger systems without having each step useful). The definition of "we are of Nature" is essentially "we are of Physics". This is true, but its not really useful. On your morality lines: Morality is a personal concept in people, but it is influenced by society and the people they interact with. There doesn't have to be some objective right/wrong, and so people can say that the scientists were being immoral (according to the person's own moral ideas). The scientists may very well believe they were being moral, or perhaps they didn't think about it (people do that!) > that our nature-created brains have led us to create? Well, as stated before, morality isn't the same between humans. There's no objective authority that decides X is right or Y is wrong, simply social/cultural influences throughout the world. You could view morality as a way that you think the world/people should behave to maximize some value you hold. Perhaps you value sentient life, and so you hold self-sacrifice to save a dozen people to be a moral good as it continues more sentient life.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > Well, as stated before, morality isn't the same between humans. There's no objective authority that decides X is right or Y is wrong, simply social/cultural influences throughout the world. Worth remembering that it's also not the case that every person has different morality, and everyone's moral values are uniformly distributed across the space of possible values. No, the moral values of humans are all very strongly correlated, both within and across societies. We spend a lot of time bikeshedding the details, but we essentially have a shared sense of what's right and wrong. (I hypothesize it's because we all have the same brain architecture - the basic moral sense is encoded in firmware, and through culture we adapt it to fit the environments and societies we live in.)
  - Draken93 6y ago
    I would question your point, "that moral values [...] are very strongly correlated [...] across societies". My favourite example is the Aztecs society. Moral values were completly different. Sparta is another example. The Nazi regime in Germany too. Slavery in the US. I could keep going for another hour. Moral values are highly dependent on you environmental influences. Nevertheless you are totaly correct, that the majority of people in a single society shares similair views on moral rules.
anigbrowl 6y ago
You know that's a bullshit excuse because you wouldn't accept it from someone who knowingly caused you serious problems.

by cubano 6y ago

jonplackett 6y ago

This is really an argument about the definition of natural isn’t it. We’re from nature but personally I believe humans are something different. We’re the only animal with choice - that we know of at least, and if you believe in free will, which some people don’t of course.

linkdd 6y ago
It's not a matter of what we believe, but it's a matter of facts. Humans comes from nature, and the building blocks of a human are the same as everything else in the universe (as far as we know). Recent studies have shown that "choice" is made before we are even conscious of it (so byebye free will?), and no studies have shown that we are the only living creature able to make "choices". "Humans are special", "Humans are different", "Humans are smarter" is the perfect example of arrogance and ignorance of humans.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  It is a matter of definitions, and it's a matter of avoiding a fallacy. Just because "we come from nature", doesn't mean we're bound to whatever patterns of behavior we observe in animals, and it especially doesn't mean the "nature" tells us what we should or shouldn't do. The world of non-human living things is a very bad place to look for lessons in morality. "Humans are different" isn't arrogance, it's observable reality. And we need some words to separate the categories of "things done / caused by humans" vs "things done / caused by everything else" - hence the common meaning of "natural" and "nature". > the building blocks of a human are the same as everything else in the universe (as far as we know). Building blocks of everything in the universe are the same, but there's still meaningful difference between things.
- animal_spirits 6y ago
  Humans _are_ special, humans _are_ smarter. While yes we do share common ancestors with chimpanzees and other apes, there is something incredibly different between us and the chimpanzee. I just got off of an airplane thinking how insane it is humans can build these tools. We humans wield great power over other life. With great power comes great responsibility, and just as much as we should humbly recognize our origins and common ancestors with other life, we should also recognize the immense responsibilities over other life that we have.
- jonplackett 6y ago
  By that definition how is anything ever unnatural? Everything comes from the Big Bang so everything is natural?

pengstrom 6y ago

Yet you are able to learn, reason and communicate. That potential is why we're not hunters and gatherers still.

schrodinger 6y ago

I believe the point is that “the interest of humans is not the same as the interest of nature.” We are part of nature, but not referentially equal. “Nature” may not care what happens to the human species, but we do!

erickj 6y ago
Exactly. Well said.

MinusGix 6y ago

In part this is arguing over a definition of nature. You're going for the obvious "We are part of nature because nature created us and we work within the system." while they're going for the idea of it being more strictly influenced by evolutionary change which we have the ability to 'escape' (escape in the sense that we can go farther than an animal can due to being able to design larger systems without having each step useful). The definition of "we are of Nature" is essentially "we are of Physics". This is true, but its not really useful. On your morality lines: Morality is a personal concept in people, but it is influenced by society and the people they interact with. There doesn't have to be some objective right/wrong, and so people can say that the scientists were being immoral (according to the person's own moral ideas). The scientists may very well believe they were being moral, or perhaps they didn't think about it (people do that!) > that our nature-created brains have led us to create? Well, as stated before, morality isn't the same between humans. There's no objective authority that decides X is right or Y is wrong, simply social/cultural influences throughout the world. You could view morality as a way that you think the world/people should behave to maximize some value you hold. Perhaps you value sentient life, and so you hold self-sacrifice to save a dozen people to be a moral good as it continues more sentient life.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
> Well, as stated before, morality isn't the same between humans. There's no objective authority that decides X is right or Y is wrong, simply social/cultural influences throughout the world. Worth remembering that it's also not the case that every person has different morality, and everyone's moral values are uniformly distributed across the space of possible values. No, the moral values of humans are all very strongly correlated, both within and across societies. We spend a lot of time bikeshedding the details, but we essentially have a shared sense of what's right and wrong. (I hypothesize it's because we all have the same brain architecture - the basic moral sense is encoded in firmware, and through culture we adapt it to fit the environments and societies we live in.)
- Draken93 6y ago
  I would question your point, "that moral values [...] are very strongly correlated [...] across societies". My favourite example is the Aztecs society. Moral values were completly different. Sparta is another example. The Nazi regime in Germany too. Slavery in the US. I could keep going for another hour. Moral values are highly dependent on you environmental influences. Nevertheless you are totaly correct, that the majority of people in a single society shares similair views on moral rules.

anigbrowl 6y ago

You know that's a bullshit excuse because you wouldn't accept it from someone who knowingly caused you serious problems.