6 ms·
The equilibrium with lower biodiversity is more fragile and less beneficial for us[0]. Having said that, we are _not_ nature. We make conscious decisions and so
by onikolas7 6y ago
The equilibrium with lower biodiversity is more fragile and less beneficial for us[0]. Having said that, we are _not_ nature. We make conscious decisions and so we should hold ourselves in a higher standard (both from a practical and moral perspective).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Human_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Human_health
Re-reading my comment I realize it sounds like low-key creationism BS which was not my intention.
- mrmonkeyman 6y agoWe are not nature? I assume you are now invoking the mystical and magical "free will" with the word "conscious"? How does saying that word change anything? Where do you think your choices originate from? A soul?
- eru 6y agoIf tomorrow we find proof that dolphins make conscious decisions, will they cease to be nature? I suspect whether to draw the line to make 'nature' include or exclude humans is very similar to whether to include or exclude the observer in quantum mechanics. Both perspectives are entirely reasonable, but they are useful in different circumstances.
- vixen99 6y agoTomorrow? Of course animals make conscious decisions. This orangutan had, prior to implemention, made a conscious decision to build a hammock by tying a sheet to the cage bars. https://roaring.earth/orangutan-builds-a-hammock/ https://roaring.earth/orangutan-builds-a-hammock/
- onikolas7 6y agoThe orangutan's ability to build a hammock does not change its responsibility towards its environment (as its ability to alter it is still very low). However, my ability to start a fire does come with significant responsibility.
- IggleSniggle 6y agoYes to your link, no to “humans / conscious decision-making are not nature.” Moreover, morality is itself a naturally emergent phenomenon of evolution. Charles Darwin even proposed this, and we have found it to hold true again and again.
- onikolas7 6y ago"morality is itself a naturally emergent phenomenon of evolution". Sure, but now that we have this evolutionary mechanism we also have more responsibility than cyanobacteria (which is what my original comment was about).
- sebmellen 6y agoHumans certainly are nature. In a very real sense, every part of us is "natural", and we are emergent properties of the natural world. Figs do not grow on thistles.
- Ma8ee 6y agoSo what is not natural according to you?
- sebmellen 6y agoWell, it's certainly hard to define. Just as any grocery store can slap an "all-natural" label on nearly any product, so too can we. But my point here is more that we are not consciously-created products, at least not yet. For now, we're still the results of a "natural" evolutionary process.
- Ma8ee 6y agoThe first definition of natural returned when I google the word is > existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind. So when you are trying to say that what is caused by humans is natural too, then you are clearly contradicting the dictionary definition of the word. Which is what I was trying to draw your attention to when I asked the question.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]