3 ms·
I think he means the fact that the GW is man-made instead of a natural phenomenon.
by saganus 12y ago
I think he means the fact that the GW is man-made instead of a natural phenomenon.
- raldi 12y agoOkay, and how is that significant?
- corin_ 12y agoIn a conversation about whether or not to add man-made touches to natural beauty... you didn't mention modifying natural beauty, but an already man-made thing.
- sneak 12y agoThe works of men, and men themselves, are part of nature. It is nothing short of hubris to believe otherwise. We, like all apex predators before us, will soon become extinct from this planet leaving only fossils in our wake. Nature encapsulates us - not the other way around.
- corin_ 12y agoSorry but that's ridiculous. Yes, on a philosophical level you can say that, but the word "nature" is defined as excluding anything human-related. > "The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations" - OED Otherwise there would be no point having that word as it would by synonymous with "everything".
- sliverstorm 12y agoThe works of men, however, didn't take 17 million years to develop.