NationStates Jolt Archive

The main premise being that if something were not natural then it would not exist.

fire away

Everything is naturally natural. If something was unnatural, it would not be possible to exist in nature, which includes the entire universe.

I think hetrosexuality is un natural and disgusting.

every incidence that has come about is deemed natural, even those synthetic things man makes, are considered natural as they are made by a natural entity, and there fore the process in which they came about is so deemed natural

I think hetrosexuality is un natural and disgusting.

Seconded. If the weren't heterosexuals, there wouldn't be babies to throw up on the carpet and piss on the sofas. We grow them in bottles until they're old enough to bloody well know better.

there's no tick box for undecided... part of me thinks, yes all is natural, we're all guided by fate/god/whatever... another part of me says humans are increasingly de-naturalising everything..science lets us control how we deal with disease, reproduction, generally everything..laws/ethics/morals control how we make use of the knowledge science gives us... all that is un-natural...

The terms "Natural" and "Unnatural" are relative to the individual.

there's no tick box for undecided... part of me thinks, yes all is natural, we're all guided by fate/god/whatever... another part of me says humans are increasingly de-naturalising everything..science lets us control how we deal with disease, reproduction, generally everything..laws/ethics/morals control how we make use of the knowledge science gives us... all that is un-natural...

Very well spoken and thought out...

As for myself it's not an "either/or" argument.

How about we define "natural" as "everything found in nature"? So human technology wouldn't be natural, but everything that humans haven't created is.

How about we define "natural" as "everything found in nature"? So human technology wouldn't be natural, but everything that humans haven't created is.

indeed

us humans are strange creatures.... we sit here thinking we're so great, but we condem and ruin so much that the natural world gives us

Seconded. If the weren't heterosexuals, there wouldn't be babies to throw up on the carpet and piss on the sofas. We grow them in bottles until they're old enough to bloody well know better.


Yes, and everybody know that lesbians are FAR more faithful to their partners than woman and man pairings. And also they have corrupted the perfectly good word strait and now everytime I try to use it someone thinks I am talking about something else!

How about we define "natural" as "everything found in nature"? So human technology wouldn't be natural, but everything that humans haven't created is.

How about we define kipoporal as everything found in kipopore. If you dont think this is very informative, I will add that kipopore is where you find all kipoporal and nothing else. If you still think this is not telling you anything at all, I agree.

You see if we dont know how to define natural then how do we know what nature is so we can see what is found there? More to the point humans and their technology are more places than they are not. If natural things are all those things found in nature, anywhere things not natural are found cannot be nature, which means that there is not a lot of nature. Take an average American National Park, have you ever been to a National park that did not have a road, or a path or a visitor's centre, signs, or other human technologies? According to your definition the Antartic is not 'nature', the oceans are not 'nature' the National parks are not 'nature' the Sahara desert is not 'nature', etc.

Everything is naturally natural. If something was unnatural, it would not be possible to exist in nature, which includes the entire universe.
Ah, but what is nature, grass-hopper ? ;)

* Great, first organo chem today, now this, my head hurts, :rolleyes: .
I think hetrosexuality is un natural and disgusting.
Nah, its just not something I want to get into ... ;)
Seconded. If the weren't heterosexuals, there wouldn't be babies to throw up on the carpet and piss on the sofas. We grow them in bottles until they're old enough to bloody well know better.
OH ! So thats why we should not shake babies ! They might spurt every-where when we open the lid !

:D
Yes, and everybody know that lesbians are FAR more faithful to their partners than woman and man pairings. And also they have corrupted the perfectly good word strait and now everytime I try to use it someone thinks I am talking about something else!
And I'll never be able to think strait again because of it, yay ! :D !

like any big statements: if something exists, then it is also possible to not exist. so if things are natural it is equally possible for things to be unnatural.

i think zen buddists seek to get rid of this duality -the yes or no attidude to life. They might say..."orange!" instead :)

How about we define kipoporal as everything found in kipopore. If you dont think this is very informative, I will add that kipopore is where you find all kipoporal and nothing else. If you still think this is not telling you anything at all, I agree.

You see if we dont know how to define natural then how do we know what nature is so we can see what is found there? More to the point humans and their technology are more places than they are not. If natural things are all those things found in nature, anywhere things not natural are found cannot be nature, which means that there is not a lot of nature. Take an average American National Park, have you ever been to a National park that did not have a road, or a path or a visitor's centre, signs, or other human technologies? According to your definition the Antartic is not 'nature', the oceans are not 'nature' the National parks are not 'nature' the Sahara desert is not 'nature', etc.

I'm pretty sure that those roads are found amongst nature, rather than in nature, and are the result of human technology. Careful not to get your prepositions mixed up.

The Antarctic is natural because an intelligent species didn't come along and put it there - it came about through non-sentient physical processes. The oceans were not created by humans; the rainforests, simple flowers and the great deserts were similarly not created by humans. Therefore they are natural.

It's important to remember that nature is not a place, it is the sum of all things natural (ie all things not created by humans).

Erg, that last bit sounded a bit recursive...

there's no tick box for undecided... part of me thinks, yes all is natural, we're all guided by fate/god/whatever... another part of me says humans are increasingly de-naturalising everything..science lets us control how we deal with disease, reproduction, generally everything..laws/ethics/morals control how we make use of the knowledge science gives us... all that is un-natural...

Then your vote for this poll would definitely be "no", rephrased as "there exists something that is un-natural".

How about we define "natural" as "everything found in nature"? So human technology wouldn't be natural, but everything that humans haven't created is.

I disagree with drawing a line between "nature" and "technology" (and that science and its products [technology] are inherently un-natural), on the belief that it is one of the natural instincts of humankind to take guesses to explain the previously unknown, and then subject these theories to testing - the activity we know as science.

On that basis, wouldn't the application of scientific discovery through creation of technology (which satisfies the creative urge) - just turn out to be an extension of the natural human instinct?

I'm pretty sure that those roads are found amongst nature, rather than in nature, and are the result of human technology. Careful not to get your prepositions mixed up.
Actually roads are the result of human technology, and what is human technology the result of.....pan dimensional space aliens, or a natural animal?

The Antarctic is natural because an intelligent species didn't come along and put it there
The definition which I was referring to did not include any mention of intelligence, and anyway what is an 'intelligent species'? I know a lot of people who say how intelligent dolphins are for instance.


It's important to remember that nature is not a place, it is the sum of all things natural (ie all things not created by humans).
You see there it is again. Nature is all things not created by humans because why? Any other animal on the face of this planet constructs a habitat and that habitat is natural, why is it not natural when humans do the same? And what do you mean by create anyhow? We dont create anything, we modify things. If you can argue that the modification or application of our efforts to something constitutes creating it, then when we breed we have applied our efforts so having children is not natural, when we engage in animal husbandry (which is also human technology), the resulting animals are not natural.....

Erg, that last bit sounded a bit recursive...
I think you will find quite quickly that this is the only result of any line of reasoning in which you try to suggest that natural animals applying natural processes to naturally occurring materials results in anything that is not natural. You cant legitimately point to intelligence as being the factor in unnaturalising things, because our intelligence is a natural function of our natural biology. Our technology is a natural result of our natural intelligence. If all the agents in the equation are natural, then how do you end up with an unnatural sum.

You see nature is a word that describes a categorisation. Categories are things that can be grouped together due to some form of commonality that things outside the category do not share, so what is the unique feature of human technology in qualitive terms (as opposed to quantitive)?

like any big statements: if something exists, then it is also possible to not exist. so if things are natural it is equally possible for things to be unnatural.
Apologies, but your logic is a bit skewed there. if something exists, then it cannot "not exist" at the same time as it existing. (e.g. Dodos can't be extinct and not extinct at the same time.)

Is what you meant that "something can either exist, or not exist", or that "something can be either natural, or un-natural"? (I think the 2nd one is what you meant to say, correct me if i'm wrong)

These two statements are true, but all the same they have no bearing on whether anything un-natural exists. it's like saying "either something is a dodo, or is not a dodo" - it doesn't change the fact that there are no dodos left.


*phew!*

Everything is natural. The conventional school of thoughtsays that anything 'man made' is not natural because man made it. However, as man, as far as we know, developed naturally as did animals, anything that man does / makes is natural. It is natural for man to go down the route of science, and so anything he makes as a result is natural.

Homosexuality is and remains unnatural regardless of what you said. It makes no biological sense. It is falsely directed sexuality.

The main premise being that if something were not natural then it would not exist.

fire away

*shoots Invader Nation*

How long did it take you to come up with that question? Don't waste forum space being stupid.

It's a matter of definition and/or subjective opinion.

That natural makes something good or ethically right, and unnatural makes something bad or ethically wrong is faulty arguments in any discussion. It's just subjective opinions.

Apologies, but your logic is a bit skewed there. if something exists, then it cannot "not exist" at the same time as it existing. (e.g. Dodos can't be extinct and not extinct at the same time.)


yes true. i was not referring to the same object, but that if anything is called "natural" then something else can be "un-natural" :D

hence, no to the poll.

(it hurts my brain too)

Homosexuality is and remains unnatural regardless of what you said. It makes no biological sense. It is falsely directed sexuality.


But it happens in nature see the thread about homsexuality in animals

What makes Human endeavor so special? If a monkey strips leaves off of a stick and uses it to fish for termites, is the stick unnatural? Is is technology? Or when a dolphin takes a sponge and uses it to scrape the ocean bottom for food, is that unnatual? How can we draw a line when there is no real division to draw it on?
edit : to change money to monkey.. oops

How about we define "natural" as "everything found in nature"? So human technology wouldn't be natural, but everything that humans haven't created is.

How can human technology, based on the laws of nature, be un-natural?

Where do you draw the line between "human technology" or "everything humans have created" and "nature"?

The hydrogen bomb is, except for scale, essentially the exact same thing as the sun, so the line can't be drawn at the application of natural laws.

Other animals use tools and language. The line can't be drawn there (unless you want to try and make the mind bending arguement that chimps, bonobos, and other apes are humans....)

I think the human/nature distinction is really an ego trip. And a dangerously destructive one at that.

I hope this thread is meant to make fun of the latest trend in "Is Blank Natural".

Well, the blue screen of death is most certainly unnatural.
While, i must say, my shower curtain seems only natural when i'm using it.


Bugger, why are we intellectuals so bloody stupid all the time? The defenition of "Natural" has been presumed obvious for the past four millenia, and now, today, on the nationstates forums, we will challenge that view and change forever the face of humanity.

Or just make asses of ourselves. It's all in how you look at it.

The definition of the word natural has been hotly disputed since science began. Nowadays, the people I talk to (my professors) seem to see the unnatual/natural division as a falsehood. A bette question would be What is the point of calling something unnatural? It exists doesn't it?

Everything is naturally natural. If something was unnatural, it would not be possible to exist in nature, which includes the entire universe.
I concur.

I've tried debating this many times. Most people don't get it.
Most of the duller ones, too.

Homosexuality is and remains unnatural regardless of what you said. It makes no biological sense. It is falsely directed sexuality.

Actually homosexuality, assuming it is totally genetic, may be a homozygous expression of some trait that carries a reproductive advantage.
For example, the sickle cell anemia gene. Heterozygous carriers (having alleles expressing sickle cell and alleles not) exhibit a hightened immunity to malaria. Homozygous dominants (both expressing) develop sickle cell, and homozygous resseives (neithe gene expressing) have neither. So the heterozygous have a reproductive advantage.
It is quite possible homosexuality is a homozygous dominate expression of some gene that provides a reproductive advantage heterozygously.

Look here for more: http://www.times10.org/lorne_1.htm

It is also possible that homosexuality is a result of non-genetic, but biological factors, such as fetal androgen levels. In this case, it would be something of a reccuring accident.

(Personally, I believe homosexuality is probably a complex combination of genetic and non-genetic biological factors, with a bit of social thrown in as well. And thus, there could well be reproductive advantage bothe genetically and socially.)

Plenty of things are not natural. Art, robots on the moon, whiskey, two dimensional houses...

If you define "natural" as anything that can exist (Defining "natural" as "things"), then everything is natural, but that's an absurd definition.

Not everything that people create is natural, just because people are a natural species. Technology is basically different from nature. All natural things have a direct animal purpose (to feed, to breed, to sleep etc.), whereas technology does not.

Plenty of things are not natural. Art, robots on the moon, whiskey, two dimensional houses...

If you define "natural" as anything that can exist (Defining "natural" as "things"), then everything is natural, but that's an absurd definition.

Not everything that people create is natural, just because people are a natural species. Technology is basically different from nature. All natural things have a direct animal purpose (to feed, to breed, to sleep etc.), whereas technology does not.

True, but first you have to define exactly what IS natural.
Thing is, there's already a definition of what is Natural, and until we come up with a new one, that's all we have.

First, you have to understand that, under your definition, some technology IS natural. What about a factory that uses machinery to make ingestibles (as in food)?

Honestly, I think that if we really want to keep it simple, Natural is anything that isn't Man or isn't Man-Made. It's not the most accurate definition, but it's the easiest one to handle.

EDIT: On another note, everything that happens is supposed to happen. Thought is an illusion; everything that happens is simply the reactions between chemicals and energy. Thought is just a series of chemical reactions. The only thing that isn't supposed to happen is Divine Intervention, which I'd rather not discuss here because it often turns into a LONG and BORING argument in which neither side changes idea.

Still, "I think, therefore I am." Hey, I know I'm not really thinking in terms of how I think I think, but I might as well live my life anyway.

Actually homosexuality, assuming it is totally genetic, may be a homozygous expression of some trait that carries a reproductive advantage.
For example, the sickle cell anemia gene. Heterozygous carriers (having alleles expressing sickle cell and alleles not) exhibit a hightened immunity to malaria. Homozygous dominants (both expressing) develop sickle cell, and homozygous resseives (neithe gene expressing) have neither. So the heterozygous have a reproductive advantage.
It is quite possible homosexuality is a homozygous dominate expression of some gene that provides a reproductive advantage heterozygously.

Look here for more: http://www.times10.org/lorne_1.htm

It is also possible that homosexuality is a result of non-genetic, but biological factors, such as fetal androgen levels. In this case, it would be something of a reccuring accident.

(Personally, I believe homosexuality is probably a complex combination of genetic and non-genetic biological factors, with a bit of social thrown in as well. And thus, there could well be reproductive advantage bothe genetically and socially.)

And???? So homosexuals have bad genes and their homosexuality prevents them from transferring them to future generations???? Seriously. That underlines my opinion that homosexuality is misdirected sexuality - for whatever reason - may be genetic, social (Freud said due to an early childhood trauma), a combination of both or whatsoever.
None the less: homosexuals contribute nothing to the maintenance of society by producing children. That article is obviously designed to give those unfortunate people a bit of confort due to their difficult situation as outcasts of society and non-reproductive members of it.
That doesn´t change my opinion though. It partly even underlines may position. So what????

if it were un-natural, we would not possess the means to create it.

*shoots Invader Nation*

How long did it take you to come up with that question? Don't waste forum space being stupid.

*pulls out the bullet and shoots back*

that wasn't a counter-argument

yes true. i was not referring to the same object, but that if anything is called "natural" then something else can be "un-natural" :D

hence, no to the poll.


yeah that's what i thought you meant, but that doesn't change anything at all. Like I said, it's like saying "something can either be a dodo or not a dodo", which is true, but doesn't change the fact that there are no dodos.

Plenty of things are not natural. Art, robots on the moon, whiskey, two dimensional houses...

If you define "natural" as anything that can exist (Defining "natural" as "things"), then everything is natural, but that's an absurd definition.

Not everything that people create is natural, just because people are a natural species. Technology is basically different from nature. All natural things have a direct animal purpose (to feed, to breed, to sleep etc.), whereas technology does not.


Art, robots, and whiskey were created for the sole intent of satisfying some person's quest for satisfaction, which is the base human instinct that drives everything we do.

So I disagree that products of human technology somehow have less of a direct animal purpose than whatever stuff was constructed by other species for survival (e.g. nest, mound, dam), because the only difference would be the species to which the creator of the object belonged.

Homosexuality is and remains unnatural regardless of what you said. It makes no biological sense. It is falsely directed sexuality.

Actually homosexuality, assuming it is totally genetic, may be a homozygous expression of some trait that carries a reproductive advantage.
For example, the sickle cell anemia gene. Heterozygous carriers (having alleles expressing sickle cell and alleles not) exhibit a hightened immunity to malaria. Homozygous dominants (both expressing) develop sickle cell, and homozygous resseives (neithe gene expressing) have neither. So the heterozygous have a reproductive advantage.
It is quite possible homosexuality is a homozygous dominate expression of some gene that provides a reproductive advantage heterozygously.

Look here for more: http://www.times10.org/lorne_1.htm

It is also possible that homosexuality is a result of non-genetic, but biological factors, such as fetal androgen levels. In this case, it would be something of a reccuring accident.

(Personally, I believe homosexuality is probably a complex combination of genetic and non-genetic biological factors, with a bit of social thrown in as well. And thus, there could well be reproductive advantage bothe genetically and socially.)

And???? So homosexuals have bad genes and their homosexuality prevents them from transferring them to future generations???? Seriously. That underlines my opinion that homosexuality is misdirected sexuality - for whatever reason - may be genetic, social (Freud said due to an early childhood trauma), a combination of both or whatsoever.
None the less: homosexuals contribute nothing to the maintenance of society by producing children. That article is obviously designed to give those unfortunate people a bit of confort due to their difficult situation as outcasts of society and non-reproductive members of it.
That doesn´t change my opinion though. It partly even underlines may position. So what????

You completely missed the point. You said it didn't make biological sense. My point was that it does.

The alleles that result in homosexuality may well carry a benifit.
Let me put it in Mendelian Notation:
Let H equal the "homosexual gene"
Let h equal the "Normal gene"
Note that heterozygous offspring (Hh, hH) recieve some benificial result.
Put it in a Punnett square:
H h
H HH Hh
h hH hh

That gives us a 25% chance of having a homosexual offspring and a 25% chance of having a non carrier. That leaves 50% chance of offspring carrying both, which as noted above, is benificial.
Thus, the gene for homosexualtity is reprouduced by giving a competitive advatage to heterozygous expressions. That makes biological sense.

it can also be a question of if human's intelligence is natural, there are no other animals with our thought capacity, and our ability to create things, besides we don't know for sure if we naturally received this ability (was it divine intervention, a magic book, a fluke, too much pot being smoked) and also would it be natural for certain areas to remain untouched, nature doesn't really control where a species can move to, so we'll never really know, probably because we will have given the planet a one way ticket to hell within the next 3 millenia.

Honestly, I think that if we really want to keep it simple, Natural is anything that isn't Man or isn't Man-Made. It's not the most accurate definition, but it's the easiest one to handle. I'm not certain about it being the easiest to handle. leaving aside issues of the shear arrogance of man in considering his works worthy of a special classification, we still have problems defining "man-made". Are oranges unnatural because they come from Orange trees, which are nearly all made by man? Or is the fact that they are not directly made by man make them natural, in which case are cars built by robots natural? How about wool? Wool from cloned sheep? Please, give me guidance on what the phrase "man-made" means.

Homosexuality is and remains unnatural regardless of what you said. It makes no biological sense. It is falsely directed sexuality.
Homosexuality is and remains natural regardless of what you said. It makes biological sense. It is an unexplined function of sexuality.

That natural makes something good or ethically right, and unnatural makes something bad or ethically wrong is faulty arguments in any discussion. It's just subjective opinions.
It is true that people confuse natural for 'good'. This is obviously a rather strange thing to do, because most people realise that polio is natural, but most people also think that polio is not good.

i was not referring to the same object, but that if anything is called "natural" then something else can be "un-natural
This is like suggesting that if all things put together are called 'everything' then something can be called nothing, but obviously if you check out your dictionary you will find that something cannot be nothing, so you can call everything something without calling something nothing, just as you can call everything natural without calling something unnatural.

What makes Human endeavor so special? If a monkey strips leaves off of a stick and uses it to fish for termites, is the stick unnatural? Is is technology?
No the stick is not unnatural, but yes using it as a tool is technology.

Bugger, why are we intellectuals so bloody stupid all the time? The defenition of "Natural" has been presumed obvious for the past four millenia, and now, today, on the nationstates forums, we will challenge that view and change forever the face of humanity.
Actually many cultures throughout history have not had a concept of humans as aliens within their own world, and the perception of them as such has been contested within the Western culture.

The definition of the word natural has been hotly disputed since science began. Nowadays, the people I talk to (my professors) seem to see the unnatual/natural division as a falsehood. A bette question would be What is the point of calling something unnatural? It exists doesn't it?
Is there any chance that you and your professors will drop by the Auckland University Anthropology department and explain this to them. For some reason they seem to think that having a word mean one thing rather than two contrary things is something that must be avoided, because to do otherwise would be 'linguistic imperialism'.

Plenty of things are not natural. Art, robots on the moon, whiskey, two dimensional houses...
Art is natural. Nothing that exists is not natural.

If you define "natural" as anything that can exist (Defining "natural" as "things"), then everything is natural, but that's an absurd definition.
In what way is it absurd?

Not everything that people create is natural just because people are a natural species.
That's right, it's not just because people are a natural species, it is because things people create are things created by a natural species, applying natural processes to natural materials as part of that natural species natural behaviour.

Technology is basically different from nature. All natural things have a direct animal purpose (to feed, to breed, to sleep etc.), whereas technology does not.
Technology is part of nature. All natural things have a direct animal purpose? You must be joking, please explin the direct animal purpose of viruses. Further much of technology does have a direct animal purpose. Take my bed for instance, in what way is my bed not for the 'direct animal purpose' of sleeping and/or breeding?

Honestly, I think that if we really want to keep it simple, Natural is anything that isn't Man or isn't Man-Made. It's not the most accurate definition, but it's the easiest one to handle.
Actually it is this definition which causes so much confusion. And what do you mean by man made anyway? Is a domestic cow man made? Is milk man made? Is the bottle of milk in the supermarket man-made and unnatural, or not man-made and natural, or is it (as I would suggest) produced artificially (directly as a result of human directed processes) and entirely natural?

it can also be a question of if human's intelligence is natural, there are no other animals with our thought capacity, and our ability to create things, besides we don't know for sure if we naturally received this ability (was it divine intervention, a magic book, a fluke, too much pot being smoked) and also would it be natural for certain areas to remain untouched, nature doesn't really control where a species can move to, so we'll never really know, probably because we will have given the planet a one way ticket to hell within the next 3 millenia.
Again this is failing to reason through the distinction. If human intelligence is the result of devine intervention, in what way is everything else not also a result of devine intervention? In fact if devine intervention is the reason for human intelligence, then probably it is the reason for the existence of everything, so there is still no qualitative distinction between manifestations of human behaviour, and manifestations of non-human behaviour.