5 ms·

Isn't the point of being smart human beings is that we do things better than what occurs in nature?

by r2_pilot 2y ago

NilMostChill 2y ago
That assumes that rain falling on leaves serves no purpose.
- stale2002 2y ago
  Nature isn't perfect and has disadvantages compared to us. We don't have to invent ex post facto explanations for why something is the case in nature or why there is some un-intuitive reason as for why the natural way is better.
  - twojacobtwo 2y ago
    Nor are we perfect and we've been wrong about much in nature more often than we've been right over the past many millennia. The previous poster didn't imply either case regardless. The post simply pointed out an assumption being made. Frankly, I prefer the way that thinks of 'ex post facto' explanations for nature. At least that keeps us hypothesizing and not sitting there tooting our own horns.
  - quaintdev 2y ago
    > Nature isn't perfect and has disadvantages compared to us. Wow we have completely different world views. I think nature is perfect and it's us who have gone too far away from it to notice and hence we are far from perfection as well. Ideally we should not be comparing us to nature since we are part of it. But somewhere deep down we know we are not aligned with it so we end up comparing it to humans which seems pretty grandiose on our end.
    - throwthrowuknow 2y ago
      How can nature be perfect when it is constantly changing? We alter our environment out of necessity, we would only be able to survive in a very small number of climates on Earth if we did nothing to change our surroundings. Lucky you if you happen to be somewhere with year round fruit to pluck from the vine and temperate climate in the winters but that leaves the other 8 billion people to die of starvation and exposure.
    - freedomben 2y ago
      I'm sincerely fascinated by your perspective. I haven't heard this viewpoint before. Why do you think nature is perfect? I.e. what is your "gold standard" against which you measure? Something that immediately comes to mind for me is all the death and suffering that is abundant through nature. If the only thing that matters is propagation of life, then nature does seem pretty good at it, but as a being that operates some layers above the selfish gene, it seems far from perfect.
      - quaintdev 2y ago
        > Something that immediately comes to mind for me is all the death and suffering that is abundant through nature What if this is the best it can do with all the things that can go wrong or are going wrong. Perfection does not mean things will never go wrong. They can and they will. I can give you example of process that is near perfection: photosynthesis. Nature can store energy and then utilize it without creating adverse effect on other life. This is just one example but there are many processes like this.
  - NilMostChill 2y ago
    > Nature isn't perfect and has disadvantages compared to us. That's assuming that we are somehow outside of nature. > We don't have to invent ex post facto explanations for why something is the case in nature or why there is some un-intuitive reason as for why the natural way is better. We don't have to , no , but we do , because that's how we learn. Nobody was claiming the "natural" way was better, just that it might serve a purpose.
    - lukas099 2y ago
      > That's assuming that we are somehow outside of nature No it isn’t. You know what they meant, you are just one-upping them on a technicality in a way that doesn’t advance the discussion at all.
      - NilMostChill 2y ago
        > No it isn’t. Yes, it is. > You know what they meant. I have clearly stated what i think they meant. They specifically said "disadvantages compared to us." that heavily implies ( if not outright declares ) an us vs them. It seems you have a different interpretation, I'd be interested to hear what that is if you don't mind ? > you are just one-upping them on a technicality in a way that doesn’t advance the discussion at all. If you don't see how what i said was related to the discussion then we probably aren't going to agree on what constitutes a technicality.
        stale2002 2y ago
        > I have clearly stated what i think they meant. Hey and you were wrong. You are pretty bad at understanding what other people are saying. > how what i said was related to the discussion It wasn't related because the other person was correct in that you misunderstood my statement.
        NilMostChill 2y ago
        > Hey and you were wrong. You are pretty bad at understanding what other people are saying. Or you are bad at conveying an explicit meaning. > It wasn't related because the other person was correct in that you misunderstood my statement. I've outlined why i thought what i did, if that was a misunderstanding of your intention I'm willing to accept that, doesn't mean what you said was clear.
- lukas099 2y ago
  If modern farming protocols are to water at the soil, I would be strongly willing to bet that is the best way to water, at least for our particular situation of growing the crops we grow on the farms we grow them on. Much has gone into studying how to best grow these crops, both at universities and research centers and on the field at farms themselves.
username135 2y ago
That assumes that we are better at doing things than nature is. I dont know if im sold on that.
jimbokun 2y ago
We can also do stupid stuff much faster and efficiently and at greater scale than nature, too.

Isn't the point of being smart human beings is that we do things better than what occurs in nature?

NilMostChill 2y ago

That assumes that rain falling on leaves serves no purpose.

stale2002 2y ago
Nature isn't perfect and has disadvantages compared to us. We don't have to invent ex post facto explanations for why something is the case in nature or why there is some un-intuitive reason as for why the natural way is better.
- twojacobtwo 2y ago
  Nor are we perfect and we've been wrong about much in nature more often than we've been right over the past many millennia. The previous poster didn't imply either case regardless. The post simply pointed out an assumption being made. Frankly, I prefer the way that thinks of 'ex post facto' explanations for nature. At least that keeps us hypothesizing and not sitting there tooting our own horns.
- quaintdev 2y ago
  > Nature isn't perfect and has disadvantages compared to us. Wow we have completely different world views. I think nature is perfect and it's us who have gone too far away from it to notice and hence we are far from perfection as well. Ideally we should not be comparing us to nature since we are part of it. But somewhere deep down we know we are not aligned with it so we end up comparing it to humans which seems pretty grandiose on our end.
  - throwthrowuknow 2y ago
    How can nature be perfect when it is constantly changing? We alter our environment out of necessity, we would only be able to survive in a very small number of climates on Earth if we did nothing to change our surroundings. Lucky you if you happen to be somewhere with year round fruit to pluck from the vine and temperate climate in the winters but that leaves the other 8 billion people to die of starvation and exposure.
  - freedomben 2y ago
    I'm sincerely fascinated by your perspective. I haven't heard this viewpoint before. Why do you think nature is perfect? I.e. what is your "gold standard" against which you measure? Something that immediately comes to mind for me is all the death and suffering that is abundant through nature. If the only thing that matters is propagation of life, then nature does seem pretty good at it, but as a being that operates some layers above the selfish gene, it seems far from perfect.
    - quaintdev 2y ago
      > Something that immediately comes to mind for me is all the death and suffering that is abundant through nature What if this is the best it can do with all the things that can go wrong or are going wrong. Perfection does not mean things will never go wrong. They can and they will. I can give you example of process that is near perfection: photosynthesis. Nature can store energy and then utilize it without creating adverse effect on other life. This is just one example but there are many processes like this.
- NilMostChill 2y ago
  > Nature isn't perfect and has disadvantages compared to us. That's assuming that we are somehow outside of nature. > We don't have to invent ex post facto explanations for why something is the case in nature or why there is some un-intuitive reason as for why the natural way is better. We don't have to , no , but we do , because that's how we learn. Nobody was claiming the "natural" way was better, just that it might serve a purpose.
  - lukas099 2y ago
    > That's assuming that we are somehow outside of nature No it isn’t. You know what they meant, you are just one-upping them on a technicality in a way that doesn’t advance the discussion at all.
    - NilMostChill 2y ago
      > No it isn’t. Yes, it is. > You know what they meant. I have clearly stated what i think they meant. They specifically said "disadvantages compared to us." that heavily implies ( if not outright declares ) an us vs them. It seems you have a different interpretation, I'd be interested to hear what that is if you don't mind ? > you are just one-upping them on a technicality in a way that doesn’t advance the discussion at all. If you don't see how what i said was related to the discussion then we probably aren't going to agree on what constitutes a technicality.
      - stale2002 2y ago
        > I have clearly stated what i think they meant. Hey and you were wrong. You are pretty bad at understanding what other people are saying. > how what i said was related to the discussion It wasn't related because the other person was correct in that you misunderstood my statement.
        NilMostChill 2y ago
        > Hey and you were wrong. You are pretty bad at understanding what other people are saying. Or you are bad at conveying an explicit meaning. > It wasn't related because the other person was correct in that you misunderstood my statement. I've outlined why i thought what i did, if that was a misunderstanding of your intention I'm willing to accept that, doesn't mean what you said was clear.
lukas099 2y ago
If modern farming protocols are to water at the soil, I would be strongly willing to bet that is the best way to water, at least for our particular situation of growing the crops we grow on the farms we grow them on. Much has gone into studying how to best grow these crops, both at universities and research centers and on the field at farms themselves.

username135 2y ago

That assumes that we are better at doing things than nature is. I dont know if im sold on that.

jimbokun 2y ago

We can also do stupid stuff much faster and efficiently and at greater scale than nature, too.