4 ms·

We’re a product of nature, it’s mistaken to believe we are above nature or that nuclear weapons aren’t also part of nature. We’re also very much dependent on n

We’re a product of nature, it’s mistaken to believe we are above nature or that nuclear weapons aren’t also part of nature. We’re also very much dependent on nature and natural forces. So everything we do is, even if many steps removed, still an act of nature.

4gotunameagain 5mo ago
This is a valid argument, albeit a pointless one. We use the term natural specifically to distinguish between the.. natural and artificial. A term like that is necessary.
- lwhi 5mo ago
  I think sometimes the distinction is made between natural and artificial (human made) as a way to sway an argument. In many of these cases, the reasoning is tenuous if we examine with an understanding that the difference is sometimes arbitrary. If anything, we should be more careful with our use of language. For instance; 'naturally ocurring' vs. 'human made'.
- dylan604 5mo ago
  A similar one is synthetic. We've used that label for things like synthetic oil, but there are a lot of other things that are synthesized because it is too difficult to get the material naturally.
autoexec 5mo ago
Diamonds are also product of nature, but when we grow them in a lab they aren't often considered to be "naturally formed". It's just that the lab we used in this instance was part of the Jornada del Muerto.
- leonidasrup 5mo ago
  Very small diamonds can be created using detonation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonation_nanodiamond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonation_nanodiamond
- dylan604 5mo ago
  > when we grow them in a lab they aren't often considered to be "naturally formed" Isn't this solely because De Beers wants to keep the product of their mines artificially priced higher? So they come up with phrases to make lab grown diamonds sound less than the ones they mine?
- cratermoon 5mo ago
  Side note: Jornado del Muerto translates to English as Journey of Death.
nkrisc 5mo ago
With the influence of humans: artificial. Without the influence of humans: natural. There’s a useful definition for you. Otherwise according to your definition the term “natural” is completely meaningless and serves no purpose.
- SecretDreams 5mo ago
  All natural nuclear weapons has a nice ring to it ~ the OP.
  - leonidasrup 5mo ago
    "As strange as it seems now, the notion of “clean” nuclear weapons was taken fairly seriously in the late 1950s and early 1960s. U.S. government officials had been interested in the possibility of such nuclear weapons, which they believed would produce far less radioactive fallout than standard “dirty” thermonuclear weapons." https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2017-08-30/clean-nukes-ecology-nuclear-war https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2017-0...
    - toast0 5mo ago
      It doesn't seem that strange? You can drastically change the amount of fallout with materials and design decisions, so it's worth considering. For example, tsar bomba was tested with a lead tamper instead of uranium; this reduced the yield, but also the fallout. The Ripple design has no tamper, was used in the last US airdrop test, and produces very little fallout compared to other designs. A limited fallout design allows for occupation and/or resettlement after an attack, so it seems useful to consider. Yes, yes, it didn't make a practical difference because MAD makes them all unusable.
      - kridsdale1 5mo ago
        They also wanted these for domestic use. No fallout means making a new Panama Canal, or removing a pesky mountain, are just nuclear construction projects.

4gotunameagain 5mo ago

This is a valid argument, albeit a pointless one. We use the term natural specifically to distinguish between the.. natural and artificial. A term like that is necessary.

lwhi 5mo ago
I think sometimes the distinction is made between natural and artificial (human made) as a way to sway an argument. In many of these cases, the reasoning is tenuous if we examine with an understanding that the difference is sometimes arbitrary. If anything, we should be more careful with our use of language. For instance; 'naturally ocurring' vs. 'human made'.
dylan604 5mo ago
A similar one is synthetic. We've used that label for things like synthetic oil, but there are a lot of other things that are synthesized because it is too difficult to get the material naturally.

autoexec 5mo ago

Diamonds are also product of nature, but when we grow them in a lab they aren't often considered to be "naturally formed". It's just that the lab we used in this instance was part of the Jornada del Muerto.

leonidasrup 5mo ago
Very small diamonds can be created using detonation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonation_nanodiamond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonation_nanodiamond
dylan604 5mo ago
> when we grow them in a lab they aren't often considered to be "naturally formed" Isn't this solely because De Beers wants to keep the product of their mines artificially priced higher? So they come up with phrases to make lab grown diamonds sound less than the ones they mine?
cratermoon 5mo ago
Side note: Jornado del Muerto translates to English as Journey of Death.

nkrisc 5mo ago

With the influence of humans: artificial. Without the influence of humans: natural. There’s a useful definition for you. Otherwise according to your definition the term “natural” is completely meaningless and serves no purpose.

SecretDreams 5mo ago
All natural nuclear weapons has a nice ring to it ~ the OP.
- leonidasrup 5mo ago
  "As strange as it seems now, the notion of “clean” nuclear weapons was taken fairly seriously in the late 1950s and early 1960s. U.S. government officials had been interested in the possibility of such nuclear weapons, which they believed would produce far less radioactive fallout than standard “dirty” thermonuclear weapons." https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2017-08-30/clean-nukes-ecology-nuclear-war https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2017-0...
  - toast0 5mo ago
    It doesn't seem that strange? You can drastically change the amount of fallout with materials and design decisions, so it's worth considering. For example, tsar bomba was tested with a lead tamper instead of uranium; this reduced the yield, but also the fallout. The Ripple design has no tamper, was used in the last US airdrop test, and produces very little fallout compared to other designs. A limited fallout design allows for occupation and/or resettlement after an attack, so it seems useful to consider. Yes, yes, it didn't make a practical difference because MAD makes them all unusable.
    - kridsdale1 5mo ago
      They also wanted these for domestic use. No fallout means making a new Panama Canal, or removing a pesky mountain, are just nuclear construction projects.