NationStates Jolt Archive

The PETA thread reminded me of something.

Humans are animals. We are part of nature, and we arose naturally.

Therefore, isn't everything we do necessarily natural? Be it industry or agriculture or genetic engineering, we, as natural creatures, are doing it, and thus it must be a natural event.

Nuclear power stations are part of nature in the same way that beaver dams or anthills are part of nature.

So there's no reaon to claim that anything we do is unnatural or runs counter to nature, because our actions cannot help but be a natural part of nature.

I've had similar thoughts myself...

The PETA thread reminded me of something.

Humans are animals. We are part of nature, and we arose naturally.

Therefore, isn't everything we do necessarily natural? Be it industry or agriculture or genetic engineering, we, as natural creatures, are doing it, and thus it must be a natural event.

Nuclear power stations are part of nature in the same way that beaver dams or anthills are part of nature.

So there's no reaon to claim that anything we do is unnatural or runs counter to nature, because our actions cannot help but be a natural part of nature.Ah, but our endless ambition to improve our living conditions has brought us to the point where we no longer adapt our behavior to the environment, but our behavior adapts the environment to us. That is "not natural" in the sense that it is "man made".

Therefore, isn't everything we do necessarily natural? Be it industry or agriculture or genetic engineering, we, as natural creatures, are doing it, and thus it must be a natural event.

False reasoning.

When such events or objects would not occur in nature were humans not around, and actually alter nature to their own ends, they are no longer natural.

False reasoning.

When such events or objects would not occur in nature were humans not around, and actually alter nature to their own ends, they are no longer natural.

But aren't humans natural? And therefor our works natural as well?

Since the PETA thread got deleted, I'm using this a secret base. :eek:

The Gate Builders suddenly turned into a troll at the end of the thread. He type this message:

OMFGOZLOLZORS I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!

Paraphrased.

False reasoning.

When such events or objects would not occur in nature were humans not around, and actually alter nature to their own ends, they are no longer natural.

Yours is the false reasoning. You are holding man apart from nature.

Some forms of decomposition would not occur if certain bacteria were not around. Does this make it bacteria-made rather than natural. Yes what we do is man-made, but in what way is being man-made unnatural. Man is part of the ecosystem, is a natural being, after all.

The PETA thread reminded me of something.

Humans are animals. We are part of nature, and we arose naturally.

Therefore, isn't everything we do necessarily natural? Be it industry or agriculture or genetic engineering, we, as natural creatures, are doing it, and thus it must be a natural event.

Nuclear power stations are part of nature in the same way that beaver dams or anthills are part of nature.

So there's no reaon to claim that anything we do is unnatural or runs counter to nature, because our actions cannot help but be a natural part of nature.
The only problem with all that is that we're not the only part of nature. As sentient beings, part of why we're here ( IMHO ) is to nurture and protect the rest of the non-sentient natural world.

The only problem with all that is that we're not the only part of nature. As sentient beings, part of why we're here ( IMHO ) is to nurture and protect the rest of the non-sentient natural world.
:eek: I have the most respected NSer EVER on my side now! Thank you very Eutrusca for realizing that we must protect the Earth, not exploit it for no reason besides to have a nice comfortable fur coat and a juicy steak.

:eek: I have the most respected NSer EVER on my side now! Thank you very Eutrusca for realizing that we must protect the Earth, not exploit it for no reason besides to have a nice comfortable fur coat and a juicy steak.

Oh, go peddle your hippy nonsense somewhere else.

Since the PETA thread got deleted, I'm using this a secret base. :eek:

The Gate Builders suddenly turned into a troll at the end of the thread. He type this message:



Paraphrased.

I said something similar to whoever it was pointed out that I got two terms mixed up. What I actually said was:

STFU IM RITE AND UR RONG! lalalalalalalalalalalala

In jest.

Oh, go peddle your hippy nonsense somewhere else.

Who can argue with such well-reasoned arguments there people? :rolleyes:

I said something similar to whoever it was pointed out that I got two terms mixed up. What I actually said was:



In jest.
Still trolling.

The PETA thread reminded me of something.

Humans are animals. We are part of nature, and we arose naturally.

Therefore, isn't everything we do necessarily natural? Be it industry or agriculture or genetic engineering, we, as natural creatures, are doing it, and thus it must be a natural event.

Nuclear power stations are part of nature in the same way that beaver dams or anthills are part of nature.

So there's no reaon to claim that anything we do is unnatural or runs counter to nature, because our actions cannot help but be a natural part of nature.


Nature relies on checks and balances, humans have long since killed all of our predators off, or made them no longer a threat. Any species allowed to run rampant without control will destroy. So yes, we're behaving naturally.

The PETA thread reminded me of something.

Humans are animals. We are part of nature, and we arose naturally.

Therefore, isn't everything we do necessarily natural? Be it industry or agriculture or genetic engineering, we, as natural creatures, are doing it, and thus it must be a natural event.

Nuclear power stations are part of nature in the same way that beaver dams or anthills are part of nature.

So there's no reaon to claim that anything we do is unnatural or runs counter to nature, because our actions cannot help but be a natural part of nature.

A couple of responses so far have been based on humans changing the environment, but in a way, this is true of anything. Beaver dams often cause environmental havoc too.

I think the issue here is not so much the actual definition of "nature" but more what it has come to be understood to mean. We think of nature as being, primarily "untouched by human hands", mostly for the very reason that when it gets touched, it so often gets destroyed. Man is really the only animal that chooses to live in an environment where his numbers cannot be sustained without outside assistance. Imagine, for instance, if New York City were suddenly cut off from the rest of the world. The island of Manhattan is about 13 and a half mile long and a little over two miles wide at its widest point, and has something like 8 million residents. Water, food and fuel all must be shipped in from somewhere else. If cut off, the population of Manahattan would not survive a month.

Is it unnatural for man to be able to survive in space? Well, without space suits and ships, yes. Vaccuum is very low in vitamin content and will certainly not sustain us on its own. Is it unnatural for man to GO into space? Not at all. We have minds which allow us to develop tools to do so.

So I guess the answer is, it depends on who is defining what "natural" means.

Ah, but our endless ambition to improve our living conditions has brought us to the point where we no longer adapt our behavior to the environment, but our behavior adapts the environment to us. That is "not natural" in the sense that it is "man made".
What about beaver dams? Beaver dams adapt the environment to the beaver's needs by creating a pond where there was none before.

Still trolling.

AN obvious joke, when compared with previous posts?

Trolling agaist someone I generally agreed with?

Go find something real to bitch about. You know, there are starving people out there, you might recieve a little more sympathy if you took up a cause like that, instead of the fwuffy wiffy ickle animals.

:eek: I have the most respected NSer EVER on my side now! Thank you very Eutrusca for realizing that we must protect the Earth, not exploit it for no reason besides to have a nice comfortable fur coat and a juicy steak.
Why shouldn't we exploit nature for fur coats and steaks? As long as we don't alter nature so as to endanger the resources it provides us with, like fur coats and steaks, why shouldn't we make use of those resources?

Who can argue with such well-reasoned arguments there people? :rolleyes:


Im rollin the eyes right along with you......

So there's no reaon to claim that anything we do is unnatural or runs counter to nature, because our actions cannot help but be a natural part of nature.

True.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that the word 'unnatural' describes a condition which doesn't exist, and as such, has no meaning.

Go find something real to bitch about. You know, there are starving people out there, you might recieve a little more sympathy if you took up a cause like that, instead of the fwuffy wiffy ickle animals.

So? Starving people are part of nature.

Natural or not, we have made some impressive achievements. I bet the beavers envy us for our dam building capabilities.

EDIT: eating animals is also a part of nature. But if we kill animals, their sacrifice can help us get rid of the starvation problem. Everybody (who has a say) wins!

:eek: I have the most respected NSer EVER on my side now! Thank you very Eutrusca for realizing that we must protect the Earth, not exploit it for no reason besides to have a nice comfortable fur coat and a juicy steak.

Two points here.

1. Respecting and nurturing our ecosystem has absolutely nothing to do with not wearing fur or eating steaks. In fact farming and fur ranching are two very effective ways of managing the ecosystem. Much better than say posting on NS.

2. Eutrusca is far from the most respected NSer ever.

AN obvious joke, when compared with previous posts?

Trolling agaist someone I generally agreed with?

Go find something real to bitch about. You know, there are starving people out there, you might recieve a little more sympathy if you took up a cause like that, instead of the fwuffy wiffy ickle animals.
"Fwuffy wiffy ickle animals" are plenty a cause to take up. They can't defend themselves against us, so we have to.

Who cares what's natural or not? Natural doesn't mean good, and non-natural doesn't mean bad. Anthrax is natural, Glade air freshener is not. Which one would you rather have dispersed into the air you're breathing?

Why shouldn't we exploit nature for fur coats and steaks? As long as we don't alter nature so as to endanger the resources it provides us with, like fur coats and steaks, why shouldn't we make use of those resources?
Because when we expliot, we tend to cause harm to the enviroment and torture animals.

So? Starving people are part of nature.

Indeed they are: A very important part. That's nature's way of saying: 'Hey, there's not enough food in this desert for all you fuckers.'

:)

What about beaver dams? Beaver dams adapt the environment to the beaver's needs by creating a pond where there was none before.

And occasionally washing away large highways. There's a reason there's a bounty on beavers in Manitoba.

Note how the US has carefully nursed their national animal back to health, while we pay people to kill ours. I think that means beavers pwn eagles.

True.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that the word 'unnatural' describes a condition which doesn't exist, and as such, has no meaning.


I wouldn't say it has no meaning, but I would agree that it can't ever apply to anything. Not only can is nothing unnatural, but nothing can ever be unnatural, given what nature is.

"Fwuffy wiffy ickle animals" are plenty a cause to take up. They can't defend themselves against us, so we have to.

They'll evolve. :)

Indeed they are: A very important part. That's nature's way of saying: 'Hey, there's not enough food in this desert for all you fuckers.'

:)

Hey, there's plenty of meat to go around.

"Fwuffy wiffy ickle animals" are plenty a cause to take up. They can't defend themselves against us, so we have to.
Why do we have to? As long as we don't bring them to the point of extinction why can't we exploit them?

Why do we have to? As long as we don't bring them to the point of extinction why can't we exploit them?
They're ours to exploit by right of generally being bigger and nastier than a lot of them. those that are bigger and nastier than us don't have guns. WE WIN.

Hey, there's plenty of meat to go around.

Not really. Starved corpses aren't exactly meaty or appetizing. :p

They'll evolve. :)
Until then, I defend them.

Because when we expliot, we tend to cause harm to the enviroment and torture animals.
Not really. Hunters in the USA do more for the environment than any other group. The money they pay and the political lobbying they do protects alot of wild lands. Their function as the apex predator keeps animals like deer from overpopulating. Nature is built on exploitation. By exploiting the species below us on the food web we're just acting in harmony with nature.

Why do we have to? As long as we don't bring them to the point of extinction why can't we exploit them?
Because we will bring them to the point of extinction. Back way back when, people killed elephants saying "Don't worry, we'll keep plenty of them alive!". Now African elephants are on the endangered species list. And besides that, it causes pain to animals.

Until then, I defend them.

Maybe that's their evolutionary protection: Cuteness.

What would we eat if cows became cute and fluffy and learned how to do tricks on command like 'fetch' and 'roll over'? We'd be screwed. :p

Because we will bring them to the point of extinction. Back way back when, people killed elephants saying "Don't worry, we'll keep plenty of them alive!". Now African elephants are on the endangered species list. And besides that, it causes pain to animals.

The animals we kill most we intensively breed. Heck, because of our need for animals to exploit their populations are higher than they would be naturally in a lot of cases.

Not really. Hunters in the USA do more for the environment than any other group. The money they pay and the political lobbying they do protects alot of wild lands. Their function as the apex predator keeps animals like deer from overpopulating. Nature is built on exploitation. By exploiting the species below us on the food web we're just acting in harmony with nature.


i agree. I have never been against hunting, my only thing about it is it should only be done out of necessity and not for pleasure, and also for population control.

Maybe that's their evolutionary protection: Cuteness.

What would we eat if cows became cute and fluffy and learned how to do tricks on command like 'fetch' and 'roll over'? We'd be screwed. :p

well we tip them over does that count?

False reasoning.

When such events or objects would not occur in nature were humans not around, and actually alter nature to their own ends, they are no longer natural.
By that definition ants and termites aren't natural.

Changing your environment as a survival strategy is not unique to humans.

False reasoning.

When such events or objects would not occur in nature were humans not around, and actually alter nature to their own ends, they are no longer natural.

So if beavers werent around there wouldnt be beaver dams so the pond behind a beaver dam is not natural? Or does this reasoning apply only to humans?

Because we will bring them to the point of extinction. Back way back when, people killed elephants saying "Don't worry, we'll keep plenty of them alive!". Now African elephants are on the endangered species list. And besides that, it causes pain to animals.
Bringing animals to the point of extinction isn't inevitable. In the US we've got a pretty good record if you ignore the passenger pigeon. For example, I live in New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the US. We've got so many black bears that they're wandering into our cities!

well we tip them over does that count?

It's a start.

It's a start.

oh thank god it is cause i already tipped about 20

Since the PETA thread got deleted, I'm using this a secret base. :eek:

.


Good, even though we disagree on about half the animal issues you should be heard.

Back on track,

As long as man is part of nature and cant leave even if he wanted to...I wish his laws and almost as importantly the language of his laws would reflect this.


Also along these same lines the distinctions between natural and synthetic products and organic and normally grown food shouldnt be quite as black and white as people make them out to be.

oh thank god it is cause i already tipped about 20

You tipped at least 15%, right?

True.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that the word 'unnatural' describes a condition which doesn't exist, and as such, has no meaning.

Which would poke a big hole in the anti-homosexual argument that homosexuality is unnatural.

:p

You tipped at least 15%, right?


of course! what the hell you take me for?:p

Which would poke a big hole in the anti-homosexual argument that homosexuality is unnatural.

:p

*Waits for yet another thread to devolve into the same tedious three Gs. God Gays and George Bush*

People don't like to admit that we still need the environment. Trees and other stuff supply our oxygen, not big, polluting air factories. Our food either grows in the soil or eats what grows in the soil. According to scientists, we're in the middle of a third or fourth great extinction. Except, this one wasn't caused by big space rocks or non-manmade environmental change. This one is caused by the human race's "need" to go out and conquer the entire world.

They're ours to exploit by right of generally being bigger and nastier than a lot of them. those that are bigger and nastier than us don't have guns. WE WIN.

That is, until the Space Orks arrive!

Waaagh! Krumb da hoomies! *DAKKADAKKA*

The PETA thread reminded me of something.

Humans are animals. We are part of nature, and we arose naturally.

Therefore, isn't everything we do necessarily natural? Be it industry or agriculture or genetic engineering, we, as natural creatures, are doing it, and thus it must be a natural event.

Nuclear power stations are part of nature in the same way that beaver dams or anthills are part of nature.

So there's no reaon to claim that anything we do is unnatural or runs counter to nature, because our actions cannot help but be a natural part of nature.
They are indeed natural ...except from their point of view.

We declare everything we do using our brains with intent to be not natural --we build a bridge over water, it's not a natural bridge; we pave a road through a forest, it's not a natural path. We are natural beings who do unnatural things, because nature is not intelligent like us. Nature has no intent.

Which would poke a big hole in the anti-homosexual argument that homosexuality is unnatural.

:p

That's the whole point of the argument.

If you can convince SoCons of the point in the abstract, they get all confused when they realise it applies to homosexuality (or stem-cell research, or whatever).

I guess this is the wrong thread to post hunting pictures in huh :D

The PETA thread reminded me of something.

Humans are animals. We are part of nature, and we arose naturally.

Therefore, isn't everything we do necessarily natural? Be it industry or agriculture or genetic engineering, we, as natural creatures, are doing it, and thus it must be a natural event.

Nuclear power stations are part of nature in the same way that beaver dams or anthills are part of nature.

So there's no reaon to claim that anything we do is unnatural or runs counter to nature, because our actions cannot help but be a natural part of nature.
Which is why I fail to understand that there is any other motive behind most environmental movements except as a guise for supporters of self-destructive economic and social policies.

The PETA thread reminded me of something.

Humans are animals. We are part of nature, and we arose naturally.

Therefore, isn't everything we do necessarily natural? Be it industry or agriculture or genetic engineering, we, as natural creatures, are doing it, and thus it must be a natural event.

Nuclear power stations are part of nature in the same way that beaver dams or anthills are part of nature.

So there's no reaon to claim that anything we do is unnatural or runs counter to nature, because our actions cannot help but be a natural part of nature.

Natural actions can destroy the environment and life just as easily as non-natural ones. Although we humans are indeed natural, we still can do harm.

In short, natural does not mean "right" or "best".