8 ms·

Nature is always evolving, and I think it's a mistake to consider human contributions as "unnatural." All kinds of plants produce a wide variety of pesticides a

Nature is always evolving, and I think it's a mistake to consider human contributions as "unnatural." All kinds of plants produce a wide variety of pesticides as a natural defense without human intervention, and are cooking up new varieties to trial against the real world. Diseases are in a constant arms race with immune systems regardless of humanity. I'm not saying we can't get better at predicting the side effects of things we introduce into the system. But I do think regarding the cat and mouse game as "industry vs nature" is reductive dualism and shallow thinking. We are nature. Considering humanity as apart from nature was one of our more misguided ideas. Industry is a part of nature, an active participant, not in opposition to it. We were doomed to shuffle diseases around long before industry. There is an explosion of novel chemicals that we have introduced into the environment, and they will no doubt change things. Humans evolved in a world that is not the world we are creating, and we very well might not be fit for the future we're creating. But let's not call what we're doing "unnatural." That just serves as a kind of denial that we are active participants, and reinforces a subtle idea that we are Gods apart from "Nature."

skhunted 3y ago
There is an explosion of novel chemicals that we have introduced into the environment, and they will no doubt change things. Humans evolved in a world that is not the world we are creating, and we very well might not be fit for the future we're creating. This is precisely what people mean by saying what we are doing is unnatural. But let's not call what we're doing "unnatural." But most people believe this is the right word to use. I don’t think they will change their minds.
thuuuomas 3y ago
Regardless of what’s “natural”, widespread contamination from industry should reduce or remove the limits to industry’s liability. Externalities are real & must be accounted for.
- IggleSniggle 3y ago
  Agreed, and this is exactly what I was trying to say. It's an ecosystem and we're a part of it.
WhitneyLand 3y ago
By this logic humans could nuke the entire planet and that would still be “part of nature”. I think it tends to be easier for people on HN to get caught in this kind of “but it’s technically true” fallacy. We’re trained to constantly look for patterns and generalize the crap out of things so it’s a natural inclination.
- blackhaz 3y ago
  Exactly. Humans have accelerated the processes led by evolution. It is naive to assume the biosphere can keep up. The nature is likely to unable to adjust at that pace, unless we are talking about drastic corrective measures - like wiping out most of life. This accelerated development works for producing high-tech stuff, but what we do with it? We throw it out. You can't throw Earth 1 out and go to Earth 2, like an iPhone. There's just no such option.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    This is why people say billionaires have become so interested in space and luxury bunkers recently. They'll need places to go after they throw out Earth 1. If they can't find Earth 2 in time, they'll retreat to their isolated subterranean compounds and watch in comfort while the surface burns and the rest of us eat each other for survival. I can't say how accurate that theory is, but I know that one way or another, we're going to need an Earth 2 if the species is going to survive so I'm glad we've got people funding space exploration. NASA sure as hell isn't getting the budget to do it.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  On one hand an asteroid strike isn’t much different than that. Global warming too isn’t so different than other periods of earths history where even other organisms generated enough change to see some of the largest extinctions in history.
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
I would go further: we shouldn't use the word "nature" in this sense at all. Because what is nature? The woolly meaning you are using, which I presume is the common one we hear in this context, is at best so utterly banal, that it looses all meaning. At worst, it is incoherent. What is "natural" vs. "unnatural" according to such a definition? Is nature all that wasn't produced by human beings? Since everything human beings produce is produced from preexisting things (a process ancient philosophers might call "mutation" -- mutatio and poiesis), does that mean all such things are unnatural? Is rainwater natural, but water synthesized from hydrogen and oxygen unnatural? Is corn unnatural, given it is the result of selective breeding carried out by human beings? Is a blueberry natural, but a blueberry danish unnatural? Are human tears unnatural? And this contemporary use of the word isn't really in accord with the traditional meaning, if we can say that, certainly not the traditional philosophical view. Nature concerns the nature of the thing. Thus, the nature of water is to be wet and transparent in its liquid state, but equally, the nature of certain plastics is to be flexible within certain conditions. And we can extend this to organisms: the nature of human beings is to be rational; the nature of lions is to hunt prey and consume their flesh; the nature of synthetic water is identical to the nature of water found in a puddle; the nature of corn is to grow to produce the fruit that we happen to eat. Now, in a traditional philosophical context, we may speak of creation, that is, all that is, metaphysically speaking, contingent, that which did not need to exist, or that which cannot account for its own existence, not just in time, but here and now. This draws the distinction between creation and creator, that is to say, that cause which causes things to be and which itself is not a thing, not contingent, and does not require a cause, as it is that cause. But this has nothing to do with distinguishing between things we already find in the world, and things made by human beings, like pesticides or artifacts or synthetic objects. Everything that is is creation in this sense, man-made or otherwise. Also according to this traditional metaphysical view is how human beings differ from other embodied living things, and that is the capacity to reason and the capacity to choose (either in accord or against reason, effectively). And these faculties of intellect and will, dependent as they are on the physical to function, but inexplicable as physical phenomenon as such, mean human beings are a unity of the physical and immaterial. It is not my intent to prove this claim here (it has to do with the act of abstraction and matter as the principle of individuation, if you're interested; you might find this video of use [0]). The point is to show a sound basis for making certain distinctions, none of which conform to the woolly, contemporary notion of "nature". What we might say is that the pesticide in question, because of its nature, is harmful to human beings, because of our nature. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6GmCyKylTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6GmCyKylTw

skhunted 3y ago

There is an explosion of novel chemicals that we have introduced into the environment, and they will no doubt change things. Humans evolved in a world that is not the world we are creating, and we very well might not be fit for the future we're creating. This is precisely what people mean by saying what we are doing is unnatural. But let's not call what we're doing "unnatural." But most people believe this is the right word to use. I don’t think they will change their minds.

thuuuomas 3y ago

Regardless of what’s “natural”, widespread contamination from industry should reduce or remove the limits to industry’s liability. Externalities are real & must be accounted for.

IggleSniggle 3y ago
Agreed, and this is exactly what I was trying to say. It's an ecosystem and we're a part of it.

WhitneyLand 3y ago

By this logic humans could nuke the entire planet and that would still be “part of nature”. I think it tends to be easier for people on HN to get caught in this kind of “but it’s technically true” fallacy. We’re trained to constantly look for patterns and generalize the crap out of things so it’s a natural inclination.

blackhaz 3y ago
Exactly. Humans have accelerated the processes led by evolution. It is naive to assume the biosphere can keep up. The nature is likely to unable to adjust at that pace, unless we are talking about drastic corrective measures - like wiping out most of life. This accelerated development works for producing high-tech stuff, but what we do with it? We throw it out. You can't throw Earth 1 out and go to Earth 2, like an iPhone. There's just no such option.
- autoexec 3y ago
  This is why people say billionaires have become so interested in space and luxury bunkers recently. They'll need places to go after they throw out Earth 1. If they can't find Earth 2 in time, they'll retreat to their isolated subterranean compounds and watch in comfort while the surface burns and the rest of us eat each other for survival. I can't say how accurate that theory is, but I know that one way or another, we're going to need an Earth 2 if the species is going to survive so I'm glad we've got people funding space exploration. NASA sure as hell isn't getting the budget to do it.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
On one hand an asteroid strike isn’t much different than that. Global warming too isn’t so different than other periods of earths history where even other organisms generated enough change to see some of the largest extinctions in history.

lo_zamoyski 3y ago

I would go further: we shouldn't use the word "nature" in this sense at all. Because what is nature? The woolly meaning you are using, which I presume is the common one we hear in this context, is at best so utterly banal, that it looses all meaning. At worst, it is incoherent. What is "natural" vs. "unnatural" according to such a definition? Is nature all that wasn't produced by human beings? Since everything human beings produce is produced from preexisting things (a process ancient philosophers might call "mutation" -- mutatio and poiesis), does that mean all such things are unnatural? Is rainwater natural, but water synthesized from hydrogen and oxygen unnatural? Is corn unnatural, given it is the result of selective breeding carried out by human beings? Is a blueberry natural, but a blueberry danish unnatural? Are human tears unnatural? And this contemporary use of the word isn't really in accord with the traditional meaning, if we can say that, certainly not the traditional philosophical view. Nature concerns the nature of the thing. Thus, the nature of water is to be wet and transparent in its liquid state, but equally, the nature of certain plastics is to be flexible within certain conditions. And we can extend this to organisms: the nature of human beings is to be rational; the nature of lions is to hunt prey and consume their flesh; the nature of synthetic water is identical to the nature of water found in a puddle; the nature of corn is to grow to produce the fruit that we happen to eat. Now, in a traditional philosophical context, we may speak of creation, that is, all that is, metaphysically speaking, contingent, that which did not need to exist, or that which cannot account for its own existence, not just in time, but here and now. This draws the distinction between creation and creator, that is to say, that cause which causes things to be and which itself is not a thing, not contingent, and does not require a cause, as it is that cause. But this has nothing to do with distinguishing between things we already find in the world, and things made by human beings, like pesticides or artifacts or synthetic objects. Everything that is is creation in this sense, man-made or otherwise. Also according to this traditional metaphysical view is how human beings differ from other embodied living things, and that is the capacity to reason and the capacity to choose (either in accord or against reason, effectively). And these faculties of intellect and will, dependent as they are on the physical to function, but inexplicable as physical phenomenon as such, mean human beings are a unity of the physical and immaterial. It is not my intent to prove this claim here (it has to do with the act of abstraction and matter as the principle of individuation, if you're interested; you might find this video of use [0]). The point is to show a sound basis for making certain distinctions, none of which conform to the woolly, contemporary notion of "nature". What we might say is that the pesticide in question, because of its nature, is harmful to human beings, because of our nature. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6GmCyKylTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6GmCyKylTw