Man Made vs. Natures own

[kendoiwan]

First part is simple enough do you believe that it's happening, if you do; is it man made or a natural occurance, if not why not.


See post. 43 to see where this is coming from. Claverhouse.

[Lee]

Where is the "I honestly do not know" option?

[Lee]

is it man made or a natural occuranceThe problem with framing the issue like this is that man is a natural occurance.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

One could define "natural" as "being compatible with the present ecosystem".

[kendoiwan]

The problem with framing the issue like this is that man is a natural occurance.

We may be a natural occurance but the effect our technology is having on the environment is not

[Lee]

We may be a natural occurance but the effect our technology is having on the environment is notThat doesn't make sense, unless you decide to arbitrarily draw a line at some point between what is and isn't natural. Perhaps such a line may be useful to some extent, but it isn't a real category of the world, only your imagination. There is nothing intrinsically "unnatural" about human technology.

[Lee]

One could define "natural" as "being compatible with the present ecosystem".You could do, but then you'd be wrong.

Humans can't be incompatible with the current ecosystem, because we are part of the current ecosystem. I am not entirely sure what "compatible" means in this context anyway, since is presupposes some condition that you think is "correct."

Nature doesn't exist in any balance and never has done, any indication that it does is an illusion brought about from an evolutionary race that forces each to adapt to everything else, but there is no inherent stability that should be preserved or that anything can be incompatible with.

[kendoiwan]

That doesn't make sense, unless you decide to arbitrarily draw a line at some point between what is and isn't natural. Perhaps such a line may be useful to some extent, but it isn't a real category of the world, only your imagination.


So automobiles are a natural occurance? Greenhouse admissions are a natural occurance? How are you defining natural? Please make sense because your failing to be clear at the moment

[kendoiwan]

You could do, but then you'd be wrong.

Humans can't be incompatible with the current ecosystem, because we are part of the current ecosystem.

We may be but what we do isn't... if we continue at the current rate we will end our relatively short time on this planet...

[Lee]

We may be but what we do isn't...no, it really, really is.

In an ecological sense, technology is just a reshaping of the environment by an organism; birds build nests, wasps build hives, chimpanzees use sticks to eat ants, bonobos use rocks to break nuts etc. The recent ancestors of humans began using more subtle techniques, by inventing clubs, axes, animal skin clothing, necklaces, bow and arrows, huts and so on.

There is no point along this technological progression where anything becomes unnatural. All is achieved by natural organisms, obeying natural laws and made of natural materials, rearranged in such a way as to be useful to that organism.

In a more abstract way, all technology is an extended phenotype of the human genome, simply a more functional extension of the technology that is our bodies. As far as a nature is "concerned," our bodies are just technology which our genes use to propogate themselves.


if we continue at the current rate we will end our relatively short time on this planet...That could be true. Many species have traversed a path where nature has blindly led them down a path to their own destruction, usually through overspecialization.

Need anyone bring up Easter Island, the case study of how a human civilisation sowed the seeds of their own doom by destroying the ecosystem which they relied on.

Nothing about these Easter Islanders, or any other species which has died off can be meaningfully said to be unnatural.

[kendoiwan]

This has nothing to do with nature leading us anywhere,this is our own doing... and manipulating a naturally occuring phenom to achieve unnatural results isn't exactly a natural occurance... you usage of the natural is to loose for my liking I suppose

[Lee]

This has nothing to do with nature leading us anywhere,this is our own doing...That presupposes that our decisions are free from physical laws, a position which is difficult to maintain.

I am not advocating that we shouldn't do anything, only that whatever we do will not be free from physical laws i.e. natural laws.


and manipulating a naturally occuring phenom to achieve unnatural results isn't exactly a natural occurance...Okay, I don't know what "phonem" means, or what you intend it to mean, but I think I get the gist of what you mean. Unfortunately you are simply making the same mistake. At what point do you suppose any action of any organism suddenly becomes "unnatural"?

At the moment you are simply making an arbitrary distinction, probably based upon little more than how green or brown something looks. What does an "unnatural" result look like? Are people breaking natural laws?


you usage of the natural is to loose for my liking I supposeYour usage is a mistake, since you are creating a category of nature which doesn't really exist.

Many people do it, it's a particular favourite of conservatives in order to give them an authority from which to cast moral judgments, because if homosexuality is unnatural then it can be conveniently comdemned as wrong, or because it is natural for women to rear children then then they should stay at home, or perhaps we could justify slavery by posing a natural hierarchy of races? These tricks and more have been used in the past, even to this day.

Now we find many environmentalists pulling the same trick, but focussing on a different subject. So often the dichotomy between man and nature is posed, frequently as a battle, with environmentalists firmly siding with nature and the belief that which is natural is right and good. This dichotomy permeates modern life, to the point where people implicitly assume that "organic produce" from supermarkets is inherently cleaner and better than "unnatural" alternatives, even though the actual evidence completely undermines this assumption, especially since these "unnatural" alternatives are that way in part because of attempts to make them safer.

I am not saying that there are no valid arguments from environmentalists, but those framed as the false dichotomy between man and nature certainly are, since they begin from a false premise. All such ethical systems which begin with this premise suffer the same problem.

[kendoiwan]

Lee and atomic bomb wouldn't naturally occur outside of humanities desire for one... neither would an SUV, or a gun... violence would, but not those particular expressions of violence...

Who says homosexuality is unnatural... it occurs in nature independant of us...

[Lee]

[the] atomic bomb wouldn't naturally occur outside of humanities desire for one...neither would an SUV, or a gun... violence would, but not those particular expressions of violence...Sure, but this is your fundamental mistake. Humanities desire is not "unnatural." Nor is a handgun in principle any different than a clenched fist, headbutt, bow and arrow, club, sword or musket.

Humanities desire to build an atomic bomb is nothing "unnatural" and neither is the ability to do it, all must be accomplished within natural laws, as a consequence of millions of years of evolution, that gradual accumulation of knowledge which has now produced the human brain, the most adaptable and useful piece of technology on the planet.

We are vessels for our genes, which predispose (through natural selection) our development down paths which increase their ability to propogate them. Our complex brain simply opens a doorway to a whole plethora of phenotypes including the ability to construct an atomic bomb and use it in the pursuit of goals.

There is no sensible point to make that division which you seem to think exists. Have you ever tried doing something unnatural? If you do I'll guaruntee you can't do it. You might wish to talk about mans role in nature, as part of an ecosystem, but there is not sense in discussing mankind as seperate, or as a deviation from some purely imaginary intentions which nature has.


Who says homosexuality is unnatural... it occurs in nature independant of us...Many people say that homosexuality is unnatural, but I am not defending that position, in fact I think it is completely incorrect. This is for the exact same reason that your position is also incorrect, which is because it depends upon an arbitrary line being drawn about what is and isn't unnatural.

[Dr. Haight]

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/schlafen/sleeping-smiley-015.gif

[Lee]

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/schlafen/sleeping-smiley-015.gif (http://%5Bimg%5Dhttp://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/schlafen/sleeping-smiley-015.gif%5B/img%5D)Why are you reading then? At least make a worthwhile contribution before posting a yawn.

[kendoiwan]

I just disagree with your premise that manipulation of a natural occurance makes it natural... everything else in the world outside of mordern human activities happen without any sort of effort... bombs don't build themselves and niether do apartment buildings....

[Dr. Haight]

Why are you reading then? At least make a worthwhile contribution before posting a yawn.
It's my job. And, I voted.

[kendoiwan]

It's my job. And, I voted.
:rofl:
voters are entitled to complain...

[Lee]

I just disagree with your premise that manipulation of a natural occurance makes it natural... everything else in the world outside of mordern human activities happen without any sort of effort... bombs don't build themselves and niether do apartment buildings....:rolleyes:

Why are modern human activities the only actions that count as "effort," while the cheetah's attempts to catch a gazelle or the oak trees attmpts to spread its seed not? Again you are posing another imaginary category that doesn't exist anywhere outside of your imagination.

It's just proposterous to suggest that everything in nature except humans happens without any effort, can you imagine how complicated a task it is for a rose bush to grow? or how much energy must be converted into useful materials along the way? This only coming about after millions and millions of years of evolution. What about the lion, which I am sure doesn't agree that its hunt is "effortless," but in fact must make great efforts and burn a lot of energy, all the while trying to mate, fend of rivals and socialise within the pride.

Natural history is largely a struggle between competing genes to propogate themselves and secure a place in the next generation, which entails building the right technology to do that, obtaining resources from the environment (i.e. eating, drinking and whatnot) and using them in a manner to achieve goals. These goals are in turn shaped by natural selection so they align more closely with behaviours that improve the chances of reaching future generations.

Your hand, so adept at manipulating objects performs many functions, and is made from materials in your environment by your genes. Technology is no exception, because for all intents and purposes, your body is technology. Basically the application of resources in the environment toward the satisfaction of goals. There is no difference in principle (at least in this respect) between bullettproof glass and the hermit crab's shell.

If anything your hand is a far greater rearrangement of raw materials than many pieces of technology that you would probably consider "unnatural."

[kendoiwan]

you're reaching... I hope your just excercising the ole brain muscle...

[Lee]

you're reaching...I am not reaching. So far you have offered no reason to accept your categorisation. You have not explained how something a natural organism does, with a natural brain, with natural materials and within natural laws can somehow transcend this and become unnatural.

It appears that you are either uninterested in correcting your mistake, or incapable.

[kendoiwan]

plastic is not a naturally occuring product of nature, it's something we created by altering nature to suit our purposes... If we use all the oil in the world there would never again be plastic unless we learn of some other way to create it, plastic doesn't grow anywhere... You're reaching and if you don't know it all the sadder for you

P.S. now I know what grandma meant when she said the smarter we are, the bigger damn fools we become...

[Lee]

plastic is not at naturally occuring product of nature, it's something we created by altering nature to suit our purposes... If we use all the oil in the world there would never again be plasitic unless we learn of some other way to create it, plastic doesn't grow anywhere... Your reaching and if you don't know it all the sadder for youBut plastic is not unnatural. It is a particular configuration of particles which abide natural laws, there are perfectly natural ways of bringing plastic about. Just because only one animal has discovered how to make plastic does not make it unnatural. Only elephants have trunks, but that is not unnatural.

Birds nests do not occur anywhere in nature without birds, and they certainly do not grow anywhere. But the materials are there, ready to be discovered and rearranged in a manner to suit birds. Of course nobody in their right mind would suggest that this is unnatural, because birds are natural. The same principle applies to all human activity, just as it applies to birds, chimpanzees, dolphins and oak trees.

There is nothing unnatural about oil either, nor any use we may make of it. By subscribing to that fallacy you condemn yourself to accepting absurdities, such as that apples are unnatural, because they are just made from materials the plant has acquired from its environment.

The criterion of "not growing anywhere" is not helpful either, because it means that gravity is unnatural, the ocean is unnatural, mountains are unnatural, death is unnatural etc.

You are either serious about correcting such conceptual errors or not, and these kind of errors are very important when discussing these kind of topics, since they can easily lead us astray in our search for answers. Your persistence in argument, despite the unrefuted criticisms I have levelled, simply suggests that you are not interested in learnin anything. I doubt very much that you have given anything I have said more than a fleeting glance, which would explain your persistence in arguing such a flawed position. I certainly do not believe you are just that incapable.

Edit: Even though the sticks which the birds use to build a nest do indeed grow, they too are made of materials that didn't grow, but were simply rearragened. In fact, the word "grow" is somewhat misleading, since it sometimes implies an almsot spontaneous appearence, when really it is just a rearrangement of materials and energy into a functional order.

Humans are inescapably part of the ecosystem, not something which has just been tacked on. Everything humans do is part of what the ecosystem has done, what the gradual trial and error accumulation of knowledge has accomplished, all the way from the primordial soup to mordern day cities.

[Apostasius]

It sounds like kendoiwan is using a particular instantiation of "natural" with regard to self-sustaining ecological cycles. In that sense, plastics, nukes, and other synthetic creations are ostensibly not part of this mode of environmental naturalism while being natural in a broader sense (Lee's argument is not necessarily refuted--just not functionally relevant to the current frame of debate as posed by kendoiwan).

Traditionally, ecology, conservation, and environmentalism do not encompass processes of human agency insofar as these processes redefine a context of our operation both within and in control of them. Humanity is unique in its ability to create and reshape the biosphere on a large scale. While natural in a broad sense, one can argue that human action can be unnatural, because it is not always in accordance with the normal course of events within the context of Earth's 4.5 billion year old history.

Without controls, human activity will affect the rest of the environment negatively. Humans can either enforce their own controls, or the Earth will eventually do it for/to them--perhaps with dire consequences both for humanity and the environment as a whole. Selective forces will act, but at what cost?

As for global warming, the data seem quite persuasive for human activity exacerbating what normally might have been a cyclical climatic occurrence.

[s'box]

Natural in this sense, could be anything not created by man. The distinction is really one of 'higher brain' (say for instance, post-apple of knowledge eaten man) tool building conciousness and everything else. Directives and courses that can be changed in a lifeform without invoking force or elimination, the standard by which many humans tend to think of themselves as relatively distinct from the rest of nature.

Now in this case for instance, fizzling out the distinction between natural and unnatural makes a conceptual void when humans are trying to guage the impact of their tools on the biosphere and its effects on the natural goals, in order to improve the quality of their tools and ensure their own comfort.

Its a useful concept, getting rid of it doesnt do much for anyone really.


As far as the thread, Al Gore told me that the idea that global warming isnt happening and isn't caused by man is an unscientific myth invented by oil corporations, and I tend to believe him

[Purple-Silver Fox]

Lee, you are talking about "natural" as in "natural laws", while most others are talking about nature as the ecosystem. Your point is valid, if only because it is redundant. Of course everything that happens, is physically possible.

Somnus: the level of energy use could serve as a quantifiable measure of naturality. The environment is powered by solar energy and its direct use in low-intensity chemistry. Unnatural would be anything that releases large amounts of energy, including fire.

Edit:
Or maybe impact should be used as a measure, like in the well-known equation impact=population*consumption*technology

[kendoiwan]

Natural- Adj.
1. Present in or produced by nature
2. Of, relating, or concerning nature
3. conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature.
4. Not altered, treated, or disgused

Artificial- Adj.
1. Made by humans; produced rather than natural
2. Made in imitation of something natural, simulated


This isn't that complicated... According to Lees loose usage a clone could be considered natural, or red #40, or teenage mutant ninja turtles... lets be serious people...

[kendoiwan]

Well now that Lee is done arguing that Agent 47 and Master Splinter are "natural" beings

I was really expecting more people to argue that it's a natural occurance independent of man...

[Lee]

Well now that Lee is done arguing that Agent 47 and Master Splinter are "natural" beings

I was really expecting more people to argue that it's a natural occurance independent of man...I have done arguing because because you have no argument, all you have is some fuzzy idea, with no actual clarification of what criterion you think establishes something as natural or unnatural. My argument is that all such criterions will lead to absurdities, which I have shown all along by presenting counterexamples, which you have decided to reject outright with no argument.

Even your claim that clones are unnatural leads us to the obvious problem of identical twins, one of which is a clone of the original.

In short, mankinds relation to nature is as part of the family, not as some stranger who just turned up oneday and began doing peculiar things. The quicker you realise that, the quicker you can clean up the conceptual errors which underlye your current thinking.

As it currently stands, you will only perpetuate the false dichotomies and ethical equivocations which already muddy the waters of this debate.

[floid]

I have done arguing because because you have no argument, all you have is some fuzzy idea, with no actual clarification of what criterion you think establishes something as natural or unnatural. My argument is that all such criterions will lead to absurdities, which I have shown all along by presenting counterexamples, which you have decided to reject outright with no argument.

Even your claim that clones are unnatural leads us to the obvious problem of identical twins, one of which is a clone of the original.

In short, mankinds relation to nature is as part of the family, not as some stranger who just turned up oneday and began doing peculiar things. The quicker you realise that, the quicker you can clean up the conceptual errors which underlye your current thinking.

As it currently stands, you will only perpetuate the false dichotomies and ethical equivocations which already muddy the waters of this debate.
Very cogently put.
However since all dichotomies are the product of thought the waters will still be muddy whether one considers them to be true or false.
Only humans are stupid enough to try to solve a problem by compulsively reiterating it's initial cause.

[kendoiwan]

Lee that is just bullshit... as it stands you are inventing your own definition of words to suit your arguement... Go argue with the good folks at dictionary.com
Your definition is just that, your defintion...

[kendoiwan]

Very cogently put.
However since all dichotomies are the product of thought the waters will still be muddy whether one considers them to be true or false.
Only humans are stupid enough to try to solve a problem by compulsively reiterating it's initial cause.

So you would agree that cane sugar is just as natural as high fructose corn syrup... that a cubic ziconia is just as natural as a diamond, that any artificially made item is just as natural as something you find in nature... All we need now is to be able to synthesize oil... oh wait we can't I wonder why

[floid]

So you would agree that cane sugar is just as natural as high fructose corn syrup... that a cubic ziconia is just as natural as a diamond, that any artificially made item is just as natural as something you find in nature... All we need now is to be able to synthesize oil... oh wait we can't I wonder why

There is nothing unnatural that cannot be traced back to a natural source and there is nothing natural that cannot be made unnatural.

It is a matter of personal taste. However when those tastes are programmed by the culture in which one lives they seem to take on the likeness of a "law of nature".

[kendoiwan]

so in essence there is no need for the word artificial and a drink with absolutely no juice in it is as natural as 100% pure juice...

[kendoiwan]

I have done arguing because because you have no argument, all you have is some fuzzy idea, with no actual clarification of what criterion you think establishes something as natural or unnatural. My argument is that all such criterions will lead to absurdities, which I have shown all along by presenting counterexamples, which you have decided to reject outright with no argument.

Even your claim that clones are unnatural leads us to the obvious problem of identical twins, one of which is a clone of the original.

In short, mankinds relation to nature is as part of the family, not as some stranger who just turned up oneday and began doing peculiar things. The quicker you realise that, the quicker you can clean up the conceptual errors which underlye your current thinking.

As it currently stands, you will only perpetuate the false dichotomies and ethical equivocations which already muddy the waters of this debate.

So you lose your leg and get it replaced with a synthetic limb, is that your natural leg?<_<

[Lee]

Lee that is just bullshit... as it stands you are inventing your own definition of words to suit your arguement... Go argue with the good folks at dictionary.com
Your definition is just that, your defintion...A dictionary definition is no authority on whether a conceptual category actually exists in the real world.

A dictionary might describe Jesus as the son of God, or the soul to be the essence of humanity or whatever. A dictionary just reflects common usages of a term, not whether that usage actually reflects what is being discussed.

The fact that people use the term in the way in which dictionary.com define it is something I am well aware of, and I have said so more than once already. That does not stop me from disagreeing with that usage, since I believe is leads to accepting absurdities. Unless a radical redefinition takes place then most people use the term in a self-contradictory manner.

The usage of "natural" and "unnatural" in these debates is also too often equivocated with "good/right" and "wrong/bad" respectively. This is a relfection of the problem of ethics, what authority can be used to decide between what is right and wrong?

The implicit presupposition is that of a final cause in nature. Aristotle had his four causes, the material cause, the formal cause, efficient cause and final cause. What is of relevence here is the concept of a final cause. The final cause of anything is its reason for being, a thing's purpose in the grand scheme of the universe.

This opens the way for natural law ethics, whereby the concept of a final cause as an authority to decide what is morally right and wrong. Usually this approach is adopted by the right wing, and neatly ties in with religious beliefs, as the purpose of anything would have been God's purpose, those that use their free will to act against God's purpose are behaving unnaturally and hence immorally.

By adopting the idea that everything has a final cause, and that final cause is God's will gives people a foothold, an authority from which to cast moral judgments.

The same idea is adopted today by many environmentalists, though often whilst dropping God and to be replaced with "natural harmony" or "natural essence." The problem is the same though, because once science begins studying nature, there is simply no sign of such an "essence of nature" or "natural harmony," it's just a figment of peoples imaginations.

There is no sensible point to decide that any mankind does is unnatural, except by some arbitrary and fuzzy decision.

There is no one potential state of the ecosystem which is natural whilst all the others are unnatural, there is no real way of deciding what phenotypes are no longer natural. The whole dichotomy comes crashing down.

People often seem to use the words "unnatural" to mean a "deviation from the norm," but even accepting that would require that all improbable events come to be classed as unnatural. The problem then arises about what is improbable? Is an asteroid striking the earth unlikely or likely? Natural or unnatural? That pretty much depends on an arbitrary decision, are we talking about a year or 500 billion?

Much the same problem arises with intelligent species like humans. We may be unique here, but if we were able to take several thousand ecosystems from around the universe, then intelligent species like us and an industrialized ecosystem may actually be a fairly common occurance, something that will just naturally occur if given enough time.

Even then, a improbable set of circumstances is not unnatural. Again, this is something the religious find difficult to grasp, often explaining such unlikely events as miracles.

[Lee]

So you lose your leg and get it replaced with a synthetic limb, is that your natural leg?<_<Thank you for highlighting the ambiguities with that word, which is one of the reasons that I avoid using it where possible.

Here you are simply using the word "natural" as a synonym for "original," which is not the same meaning which the word you have previously used. No, the leg is not my original, but it is certainly not unnatural either.

Is it unnatural for an animal with a big brain to use that brain to rearrage resources in the environment in a manner which is useful to that animal? of course not, that's why the big brain exists in the first place, because such a skill helped its ancestors survive. Whether that skill is used to build a simple wood and stone axe, or build an atomic bomb is in principle no different. Organisms simply doing what organisms do, which is solve problems.

[kendoiwan]

So is it your natural leg or isn't it... Is a glass eye your natural eye? Is a clone a natural human being? Did Mark McGuire naturally hit all those home runs? Was Marion Jones naturally fastest woman in the world? Your definition of natural is bogus... you can put whatever spin you want on it... If it's man made it's not nature... Or is central park nature to you...

[Lee]

http://techsupt.winbatch.com/webcgi/webbatch.exe?techsupt/tfleft.web+Aliens+They~are~made~of~meat.txt

[Lee]

So is it your natural leg or isn't it... Is a glass eye your natural eye? Is a clone a natural human being? Did Mark McGuire naturally hit all those home runs? Was Marion Jones naturally fastest woman in the world? Your definition of natural is bogus... you can put whatever spin you want on it... If it's man made it's not nature... Or is central park nature to you...But man is nature-made, and nothing man does transcends that.

Some things are certainly man-made, but then some things are bird-made, chimpanzee-made, elephant-made, plant-made or whatever. What special quality do humans have that makes man-made things unnatural, whilst all these other things natural.

I have asked time and time again for you to actually provide a criteria by which we may reliably demarcate between natural and unnatural, and you have time and time again failed o produce anything coherent. I am forced to presume that you are just incapable or unwilling to grasp my point or see your own failings.

[kendoiwan]

Again... Did Mark McGuire naturally hit those home runs? What about Barry Bonds? Or Jason Giambi? Jose Conseaco? How about the Marion Jones gold medal, did she win it through natural talent? Is an android a natural being? Is a clone a natural being? Just because you use natural laws to create unnatural results doesn't make it anymore natural. Synthetic is not natural. Artificial isn't genuine.

Edit: the human arm wasn't meant to move in the motion needed to pitch a baseball... it's an unnatural movement any pitching coach or doctor will tell you that...

[Claverhouse]

All posts above moved from Global Warming II (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12418) at OP request to form a new thread on unnature.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[floid]

so in essence there is no need for the word artificial and a drink with absolutely no juice in it is as natural as 100% pure juice...
100% naturally artificial pure juice

You're trying to load more meaning onto marketing terms than they were ever designed to bear.

[kendoiwan]

cheap word games smh

[booyalab]

Again... Did Mark McGuire naturally hit those home runs? What about Barry Bonds? Or Jason Giambi? Jose Conseaco? How about the Marion Jones gold medal, did she win it through natural talent? Is an android a natural being? Is a clone a natural being? Just because you use natural laws to create unnatural results doesn't make it anymore natural. Synthetic is not natural. Artificial isn't genuine.

Edit: the human arm wasn't meant to move in the motion needed to pitch a baseball... it's an unnatural movement any pitching coach or doctor will tell you that...

consider the trade-offs implicit in your examples. These athletes went through a lot of stressful hard work to achieve what they did, but they wouldn't have done it if the resulting benefits hadn't outweighed the costs. In the same way, humans and animals alike have no qualms with harming themselves or their surroundings or each other, if they want or need what they're getting out of it more than what they're losing. That's nature. (you can still say it's wrong, but not on the basis of it being 'unnatural' since it's not.)

[Apostasius]

This hair splitting reminds me of a couple of things.

I am annoyed when common usage of words distorts the original meaning(s). For example, the word "peruse" originally meant to read thoroughly. Now, it can either mean to read thoroughly or in a cursory manner. These are opposite definitions for the same word. Which definition is correct?

If we attempt to correct someone, that person can simply point to the dictionary as a reflection of common usage. I know of a couple of atheists who will relentlessly correct people's usage of the word "atheist". According to them, it means without belief in a god(s). Common usage and understanding holds that an atheist is someone who believes that there is no god(s). Who is right? Who's definition is privileged? The atheist is usually overruled by the majority. Common usage prevails.

The word "natural" is multifaceted in its usage. One refers to "natural disasters" as disasters that are not man-made. "Natural" ingredients are usually those not synthesized in a lab. What about natural selection or natural science? What about philosophical naturalism?

I guess my point is that, while the word "natural" is not without ambiguity, the attempt to remove it from common usage is probably doomed to failure. Instead, one can estimate meaning from the context in which the word is used. Clearly, the context of "natural" is with regard to things that are not man-made. If one wants to isolate the word "natural" and pose an argument for its proper usage, then I guess one is welcome to it--and I guess that is where this thread has gone.

I don't entirely agree or disagree with Lee's philosophical assessment. It seems like it is human nature (heh) to form binary oppositions and false dichotomies. However, the conceptual category of natural versus unnatural does exist insofar as it is used in everyday conversation all the time with people generally understanding what the other means by such usage.

I suppose one might argue that humanity's creation of a "natural versus unnatural" category is itself a product of human thought which, in turn, is a natural occurrence. I guess that makes the unnatural natural. But this seems nonsensical--it lacks the necessary linguistic differentiation that is required in everyday human thought and language. Of course, lack of precision is a problem (just think how many arguments could be avoided if people meant the same thing when using a particular word).

[Lee]

This debate is not a simple case of disagreements about definitions, if it were I would certainly have not argued as I have. You can probably find long drawn out posts of mine where I talk about the futility of arguing "proper" definitions.

Kendoiwan's usage of the natural-unnatural dichotomy (as loose as it is) has implicit empirical assumptions i.e. that these categories can be found in the world. I am not arguing his definition, I am arguing the implicit empirical assumptions, which simply do not hold when subjected to scrutiny.

At best, the words carry only a loose meaning which may aid in communication as long as both parties acknowledge that their use is not to be taken seriously. Furthermore, due to the ambiguity of the word, it is advisable to choose an alternative that more accurately reflects the intended meaning to avoid the tempting equivocations which so often crop up in this debate.

When a word can be substituted for 5 or 6 alternative meanings, we can so often find ourselves arguing invalidly without realising it. This is especially true of a words like "natural" or "unnatural" when employed in such a divisive issue.

There are obvious cases where the meaning behind the use of "natural" does make sense, if the meaning is "original" or "man-made," but there are clear cases where it does not.

The history of science is one where the conceptual barriers that humans erect to divide the world have been torn down. Newton unified the celestial with the terestrial, Darwin unified the living with the non-living and today, Neuroscience unified the mental and physical and today the convergence of economics, sociology, biology and ecology will unify all phenomena under nature in more comprehensive umbrella.

Edit: The reason why the unnatural category falls over is because it is made up on the fly, without any proper rule which can be used. From any such rule we can deduce conclusions which go against any intuitive (or on the fly) category. For example, we could use energy intensity as a criterion as PSF suggested, but then we'd be forced to consider the sun unnatural, you know, the sole source of energy for all life on earth as unnatural!!! We can always deduce conclusions which are obviously wacky. The reason is that we were only really talking about one system in the first place.

[Apostasius]

This debate is not a simple case of disagreements about definitions, if it were I would certainly have not argued as I have. You can probably find long drawn out posts of mine where I talk about the futility of arguing "proper" definitions.
Okay. I wasn't certain all parties involved in the debate understood your direction. I know I wasn't entirely clear in my understanding.



Kendoiwan's usage of the natural-unnatural dichotomy (as loose as it is) has implicit empirical assumptions i.e. that these categories can be found in the world. I am not arguing his definition, I am arguing the implicit empirical assumptions, which simply do not hold when subjected to scrutiny.


So you are making a metaphysical distinction? In addition, is it safe to assume the crux of your position is the following quote earlier in the thread?:


The usage of "natural" and "unnatural" in these debates is also too often equivocated with "good/right" and "wrong/bad" respectively. This is a relfection of the problem of ethics, what authority can be used to decide between what is right and wrong?
So such things cannot really be quantitatively measured (in an empirical sense), they exist as qualitative differences that are arbitrary, subjective, and rely on questionable authorities?



At best, the words carry only a loose meaning which may aid in communication as long as both parties acknowledge that their use is not to be taken seriously. Furthermore, due to the ambiguity of the word, it is advisable to choose an alternative that more accurately reflects the intended meaning to avoid the tempting equivocations which so often crop up in this debate.

What alternative would you suggest?



The history of science is one where the conceptual barriers that humans erect to divide the world have been torn down. Newton unified the celestial with the terestrial, Darwin unified the living with the non-living and today, Neuroscience unified the mental and physical and today the convergence of economics, sociology, biology and ecology will unify all phenomena under nature in more comprehensive umbrella.

So you subscribe to some sort of monistic philosophy?

[Purple-Silver Fox]

The multiple uses of the word natural are obviously the problem. There is natural: occurring without human intervention, natural: occurring in reality, natural: occurring in the ecology, and probably some others.

If one is using natural in the third meaning, it has little relevance outside the ecosystem (at present the earth's crust and atmosphere).

Fire, or fusion, or fission, do not occur in the ecosystem, and that is also expressed as "they do not occur naturally". Of course no one means that they need human intervention to happen, or that they are physically impossible - against natural laws - thus requiring divine intervention. And even that would be natural if you considered any hypothetical deity natural.

[kendoiwan]

So according to Lee a baseball player who takes steriods has as much natural talent as a one who has the same stats minus the performance enhancement. That an skyscraper is just as natural as a mountainrange, a sewer system just as natural as a valley.

I can't stomach the notion of something man made being considered natural. They are now testing a synthetic blood in emergency victims across the nation. You can't tell me man made blood is as natural as the blood coursing through my veins.

Just because a pace maker can allow you to have a normal pulse doesn't make it natural. Invention cannot be natural. It's an invention. It can imitate nature, it can simulate nature, but it can't be nature because it's not found in nature.

Just as a rat isn't naturally found on the North american continent, it was introduced to it. You can argue that since they are now here they are natural to the environment, but they aren't. As cattle isn't natural to many of the environments they can now be found in. The example of a birds nest isn't valid. A bird uses what can be found in its immediate environment to build its nest. Man alters the environment from the it's natural state, altering the balance of what it was when he found it. And it can be measured in the consequences...

Nothing natural about breathing in diesel fumes... because it wouldn't occur in mans absences... If it can't happen in our absence then how can you call it nature?

[floid]

Ever heard the term "naturalizaton"?

The process by which something that was not considered natural comes to be considered as natural.

[kendoiwan]

Ever heard the statement that everything has it's limits...

[floid]

Ever heard the statement that everything has it's limits...


And those limits change over time as people change their view of what they consider to be "natural".

[LongSilence]

Woodpeckers drill holes in trees to make homes, rabbits build warrens and moles dig tunnels. Men built houses from trees, and from stone, and from mixtures and from compunds that have been heated and treated. Because of this and the ways we have improved upon ways to catch and grow food we now have billions of human beings living on this planet. Many of us wouldn't have the chance to be using this very forum to discuss this had humankind never developed the imaginination to utilise the world around him and then acted on those ideas.

Unless there is some sort of proof that our "evolution" has at some point had "unnatural" interference, divine, alien or otherwise we, and our behaviour is as 'natural' as that of the birds and the bees. Are beehives natural? Then why not cities? The only reason that cattle aren't "natural" to the environments they have been transported to in recent history is because the continents seperated and the environments altered.

Now, I think the real issue is how much power and influence people think we should exert over the other living things around us. Environmentalists don't mind us altering the environment so that we can feed and clothe ourselves but they all then draw different lines as to when we should suddenly say 'No, that's enough. We shouldn't do that because it's bad.' There have always been People with such concerns, often religious figures, but technology has continued to be advanced simply because its so darn useful. And is the only way that so many varied people are currently able to live such "free" lives.

Personally I only have qualms about altering the very foundations of lifeand thus society- i.e. DNA and the way humans are conceived and born.

[kendoiwan]

I agree with you... that's not what's at stake here... what's as stake is floid and lee telling me that Pam Andersons boobs are natural...

[floid]

I agree with you... that's not what's at stake here... what's as stake is floid and lee telling me that Pam Andersons boobs are natural...

Silicone and/or saline solution are naturally occuring elements the latter of which is always present in living animals.

If the majority of all women artifically modified their breasts for a few generations breasts shaped by something other than DNA and female hormones would begin to seem quite "natural" to everyone.

Walking upright was, in all likelihood, not natural for our species to begin with.

Is it natural now?

[kendoiwan]

Your comparing apples to watermelons...

[LongSilence]

Can we not just make it easy and say that in this thread NATURE (as in everything that occurs on this planet arising from the actions of things that started on this planet, or universe even) will be capitalised? After all, its the 'proper' definition. However, when comparing ideas with the more modern vernacular how about we have 'nature' and 'artifice'?

We could even make them italic... Or something...

[floid]

Your comparing apples to watermelons...

...Naturally...

[kendoiwan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/sports/othersports/01landis.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Naturally there is a distinction between natural and synthetic.