Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
G Huxley

1 in 8 bird species threatened with extinction world wide.

Recommended Posts

Guest American Woman

I disagree, IMO nature includes humans.

"Nature" and "natural" are two different things. What humans do are not "natural occurrences," but deliberate acts of humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nature" and "natural" are two different things. What humans do are not "natural occurrences," but deliberate acts of humans.

See: the Passenger Pigeon, for example. Highly successful until encountering humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most effective cat control around here is coyotes.

Yes...foxes and coyotes, here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nature" and "natural" are two different things. What humans do are not "natural occurrences," but deliberate acts of humans.

If humans are natural and part of nature, then human behaviours and their consequences are also natural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman

If humans are natural and part of nature, then human behaviours and their consequences are also natural.

So someone who has black hair but dyes it blonde is a "natural blonde" because human behaviors and their consequences are also natural?

Your opinion varies from what the definition is, so there's really not much more to say ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So someone who has black hair but dyes it blonde is a "natural blonde" because human behaviors and their consequences are also natural?

Your opinion varies from what the definition is, so there's really not much more to say ....

The common definition is conflicting and often arbitrary.

In your example, the person is "a blonde that was born with black hair". Would you call that person an unnatural blonde?

Is giving birth via caesarean section unnatural child birth?

Is a hydroelectric dam less natural than a beaver dam?

A human and a bear each take a dump in the forest, is one turd less natural than the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is one turd less natural than the other?

I ask myself this very same question about many of the posts I see here every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman

The common definition is conflicting and often arbitrary.

In your example, the person is "a blonde that was born with black hair". Would you call that person an unnatural blonde?

Yep. A 'fake blonde' is the commonly used term, which means 'not a natural blonde.'

Is giving birth via caesarean section unnatural child birth?

Yes, it is.

Is a hydroelectric dam less natural than a beaver dam?

Yep.

A human and a bear each take a dump in the forest, is one turd less natural than the other?

Taking a dump is a biological occurrence; however, not having knowledge in this area, the turd itself could be less natural depending on the composition; what the human ingested. I can't say for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carepov, you are simply incorrect. In the field of ecology, "natural occurrences" are things that happen without human intervention, purposeful or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I was wrong, thank you both for pointing this out.

To me, it does still seem contradictory that humans and their actions are often regarded as "unnatural" - but alas it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I was wrong, thank you both for pointing this out.

To me, it does still seem contradictory that humans and their actions are often regarded as "unnatural" - but alas it is what it is.Humans by themselves is no more destructive than just about any other species but unlike other species, humans invent and build things that are destructive, often very destructive whether they are intended to be or not. That is not natural.

Humans by themselves are no more destructive than just about any other species but unlike other species, they invent and build things that are destructive, often very destructive whether they were intended to be or not. That is not natural.

Taking a dump in a forest is a natural biological function, clear cutting that forest with heavy machinery is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans by themselves are no more destructive than just about any other species but unlike other species, they invent and build things that are destructive, often very destructive whether they were intended to be or not. That is not natural.

Taking a dump in a forest is a natural biological function, clear cutting that forest with heavy machinery is not.

I'm not so sure.

Isn't human ingenuity and the use of tools natural? Where do you draw the line? Was pre-historic man's use of the wheel and fire natural? Is the use of an axe natural compared to the use of a chainsaw? Why? Is the fact that current North American and European forestry is sustainable with stable or growing forest coverage make this industry more natural in Europe and NA compared to South America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure.

Isn't human ingenuity and the use of tools natural? Where do you draw the line? Was pre-historic man's use of the wheel and fire natural? Is the use of an axe natural compared to the use of a chainsaw? Why? Is the fact that current North American and European forestry is sustainable with stable or growing forest coverage make this industry more natural in Europe and NA compared to South America?

Let me make this easy

Natural; Present in or produced by nature.

If nature produced an ax then fine .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just spell it out carepov

Spell what out?

I am in favour of sustainable human development. I am against people that put short-term human development ahead of protecting the environment but am equally against ideologies that regard human development as some kind of disease that is plaguing the earth.

I am genuinely confused on the term "natural" so I think that I will try to avoid using it until I learn more. I similarly avoid using the term "organic" when it comes to describing food, the definition is a arbitrary legal one, not scientific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Living in a cave is natural. Manufacturing shingles, concrete and glass, clearing the land with machinery and then nailing the items together to create a house is not natural.

It isn't a diffficult concept to grasp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are humans part of nature?

I will say we WERE a part of nature. Whatever we have become, is no longer part of nature as we look to control every aspect of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Living in a cave is natural. Manufacturing shingles, concrete and glass, clearing the land with machinery and then nailing the items together to create a house is not natural.

It isn't a diffficult concept to grasp.

Maybe I am overthinking this but...

What about a straw hut? A sod house? An igloo? A tent?

Are these natural?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I am overthinking this but...

What about a straw hut? A sod house? An igloo? A tent?

Are these natural?

Humans like to change their environment in every aspect. And we do it like no other species has done before. I say again, we are no longer part of nature as we seek to control it.

It should not be a hard concept to grasp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I am overthinking this but...

What about a straw hut? A sod house? An igloo? A tent?

Are these natural?

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Living in a cave is natural...

OK thanks. How about living in a cave with a painting on the wall, is that natural?

Is using fire to cook natural?

Basically, at what point in time did human activity stop being natural?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure.

Isn't human ingenuity and the use of tools natural? Where do you draw the line? Was pre-historic man's use of the wheel and fire natural? Is the use of an axe natural compared to the use of a chainsaw? Why? Is the fact that current North American and European forestry is sustainable with stable or growing forest coverage make this industry more natural in Europe and NA compared to South America?

The difference is, it is not humans who are doing the damage, it is what humans are capable of building. We are the only species on earth capable of designing and building the means of destroying life on this planet. That puts a huge responsibility on us that does not apply to any other species.

While forests can be replanted, the species that rely on them for survival cannot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...