NationStates Jolt Archive

That applies to many kinds of things. This post is about the fallacy of "appeals to nature" and how poor reasoning it is, whether the "point" being defended is a physical or ethical one...

First off, we start with what it even means for something to be "natural"; that it exists "in nature"; already, it could be considered arbitrary since humans are part of nature, and as such, so is what we do. It's not like we came from nowhere; we evolved from other animals, (nature) took naturally existing materials (nature) and rearragned them as tools using natural parts of our bodies including our hands and brains, and used those tools to develop more complex tools; so in a way, modern technology is, ironically, part of the course of nature. In a way it's the course of nature that I say this. But let's say we try to give natural a meaning and say it means what exists in the "natural" world EXCEPT for humans. If this is the case, to use "natural" as a positive term is to imply that everything else is better than humans. That sounds rather misanthropic, which makes it seem bizarre for it to be popular among humans. (Well, assuming it is; it somewhat seems to be)

Some say that "nature" gave us everything we needed to survive, but this is a myth. Hospitals use technology to save lives. One could say that things like heart disease and cancer could be attributed to technology decreasing exercise and increasing pollution... well, they do contribute to it, but I doubt the lack of technology would completely eliminate them... but even then, what about AIDS? Of course, some don't stop there. I've talked to some religious person on YouTube who claims that AIDS is a man-made disease, which to me sounds like a conspiracy theory. To be fair, perhaps it might be valid, I'm not sure, but whether it is or not, there is still one disease that completely disproves the myth that nature gave us everything we needed; type 1 diabetes. For millions of human beings, including myself, our bodies don't naturally produce insulin, the hormone which allows our cells to use the chemical energy in our bloodstream, and is therefore needed for survival. Imagine that, all of the complexity of the human body, and one missing hormone would've brought the whole thing down if technology didn't intervene; injecting insulin might not sound like technology, but it applies science, and by high school technology course definitions therefore counts as technology. Nature didn't give me everything I needed to survive, I needed technology.

And yet, despite medical technology, people seem to be inclined to distrust the "artificial" and think "natural" somehow means better. As I mentioned in the aspartame thread, some people act like something being "more natural" means that it's somehow better for you. With that kind of reasoning one could say, if bitten by a rattlesnake, don't go to a hospital (not sure if that's what's done for it, but whatever) but just let the all-natural rattlesnake venom do whatever it oh-so-naturally does. It's ridiculous.

Some even suggest that homosexuality is immoral just because it's not natural. Well I do think that's a questionable assumption actually but even assuming that, to suggest that something NOT being natural makes it LESS moral is if anything going in the wrong direction. Nature is all about survival of the fittest, the strong attacking the weak, I somehow doubt that justice is "natural". Sharks are known to eat their own young, so in that case cannibalism is "natural". Monkeys don't have restrictions about the ages of those involved in sexual activity like we humans do, so in that case paedophilia is "natural". So for cannibalism and paedophilia being natural, homosexuality not being natural is probably if anything a point in its favour. People even defend marijuana with this, saying things like "isn't making nature against the law a bit paranoid?" and while I'm in favour of legalizing it (for different reasons, obviously) I think that according to THAT kind of "reasoning" having cannibalism and paedophilia be illegal is "paranoid"...

So basically, "natural" is a word with a questionable level of meaning, contradictory in its popularity among humans, connected to misconceptions, and used to defend or attack all sorts of random different things in illogical ways. Of course, I like how it breaks the ideology labels by having the same thing that's used against homosexuality being used in favour of marijuana, when both are considered "left-wing" things to defend. But overall, I think the fallacy of appeals to nature really needs to be slammed down on for the idiotic BS it is.

For the most part, anyone who argues that something is "unnatural" really means "I don't like/approve of it".

However, what is often the case is that "natural" is substituted for "normal" where the definition of normal is "standard or average". So technically, homosexuality, which occurs naturally at a rate of about 10% of population (yes, it is arguable that the rate is higher, but still not as high as 50%) is not natural (normal) in that on the average, the population across the boards is heterosexual.

However, the average of genius IQ in the population is not normal either by those standards. And neither genius nor homosexuality are unnatural (wrong) in that they do occur naturally.

For the most part, anyone who argues that something is "unnatural" really means "I don't like/approve of it".

Internet arguments on NSG are unnatural, because computers require radical breaks with the natural state of human beings.

But then, while I think that argument is sound I just presented it to be contrary... so maybe you're right about "for the most part." ;)

Some say that "nature" gave us everything we needed to survive, but this is a myth. Hospitals use technology to save lives.

did we go extinct without hospitals?

did we go extinct without hospitals?
Well come to think of it I guess it depends what you mean by "our" survival; see my point about type 1 diabetes.

What is natural is not always right, but it is still important to distinguish what is natural in our behavior and our environment.

EDIT: People don't branch away from what is natural without some sort of coercion.

Hayteria, that is the first time in a long time that I've seen a well-explained, thought-out statement like that that I can say I agree with one-hundred percent :)

I think that 'unnatural' is either a concept that doesn't actually exist, or something which can only exist where there has been no influence by anything with a consciousness ever - most places outside of earth's atmosphere, basically (assuming aliens don't exist, but that's another issue entirely). I'm much more inclined to believe it doesn't exist, however, as classifying consciousness as something totally separate from everything else that exists seems a bit of a stretch to me.

With this view of things everything that any human has ever done or ever will do counts as natural. This would mean that the way humans have started messing up other species and the planet is itself natural, and it could be considered a freak change in the way life has worked for the past several million years. Previously the way evolution worked was that a species developed based on it gaining attributes beneficial to it in its own environment. If it didn't gain attributes that worked well enough to keep the species going, it died out.

We humans, however, having evolved to have more intelligence than other animals, are actually able to create our own ways of overcoming problems, including the use of tools which can fill in for abilities which we haven't evolved, and can save millions of years in development time. This gives us a distinct edge over other species. However, whereas other species would eventually cause their sources of food to die out, if they had too much of an advantage over them, humans have the intelligence to foresee this happening and take control of the production of our own food and environment. Unfortunately, we don't always act on our foresight, or work out all of the consequences before acting, nor are we always able to foresee enough. As a result of this the vast majority of life on Earth is getting really messed up, and it is my opinion that inevitably the life cycle will completely fail in the end, and most species, including humans, will become extinct. And, if humans are considered as natural as other species (and I see no reason for us not to be), then all of this is natural, as it's all a more or less direct result of the conditions that resulted in the evolution of humans. We're a species that gained advantages that are too great for evolution to handle. This doesn't mean I think conservation and anti-global warming efforts are pointless - there's no reason not to try to keep things as good as possible for as long as possible.

So to summarise, I don't see how natural can be considered good when everything that is supposedly unnatural is actually a part of it too. Besides, good and bad are human concepts, so shouldn't be applied to anything else anyway.

Apologies for length and / or massive tangent.

Well come to think of it I guess it depends what you mean by "our" survival; see my point about type 1 diabetes.

On the other hand, how many genetic conditions would be around if they were... bred out.

Note: this is not saying I believe that anyone not "fit" deserves to die. it's more of an intellectual excercise in "What if". High blood pressure and Diabeties also run in my family.

Btw... I do agree with most of your OP. and the parts I don't agree with are minor, not to the point and not worth debating. Good post. :cool:

Man, I thought this would have been a nice topic about sex and cheating significant-others. Or vengeance killings. Not a philosophical debate.

Somebody should put a prominent note up about that.

*walks away*

On the other hand, how many genetic conditions would be around if they were... bred out.

Note: this is not saying I believe that anyone not "fit" deserves to die. it's more of an intellectual excercise in "What if". High blood pressure and Diabeties also run in my family.

Btw... I do agree with most of your OP. and the parts I don't agree with are minor, not to the point and not worth debating. Good post. :cool:
In which case the solution is not to kill them but to stop them from reproducing. And yes, personally I will try to stop myself from reproducing.

But yeah, thanks for the compliment.

Hayteria, that is the first time in a long time that I've seen a well-explained, thought-out statement like that that I can say I agree with one-hundred percent :)

I think that 'unnatural' is either a concept that doesn't actually exist, or something which can only exist where there has been no influence by anything with a consciousness ever - most places outside of earth's atmosphere, basically (assuming aliens don't exist, but that's another issue entirely). I'm much more inclined to believe it doesn't exist, however, as classifying consciousness as something totally separate from everything else that exists seems a bit of a stretch to me.

With this view of things everything that any human has ever done or ever will do counts as natural. This would mean that the way humans have started messing up other species and the planet is itself natural, and it could be considered a freak change in the way life has worked for the past several million years. Previously the way evolution worked was that a species developed based on it gaining attributes beneficial to it in its own environment. If it didn't gain attributes that worked well enough to keep the species going, it died out.

We humans, however, having evolved to have more intelligence than other animals, are actually able to create our own ways of overcoming problems, including the use of tools which can fill in for abilities which we haven't evolved, and can save millions of years in development time. This gives us a distinct edge over other species. However, whereas other species would eventually cause their sources of food to die out, if they had too much of an advantage over them, humans have the intelligence to foresee this happening and take control of the production of our own food and environment. Unfortunately, we don't always act on our foresight, or work out all of the consequences before acting, nor are we always able to foresee enough. As a result of this the vast majority of life on Earth is getting really messed up, and it is my opinion that inevitably the life cycle will completely fail in the end, and most species, including humans, will become extinct. And, if humans are considered as natural as other species (and I see no reason for us not to be), then all of this is natural, as it's all a more or less direct result of the conditions that resulted in the evolution of humans. We're a species that gained advantages that are too great for evolution to handle. This doesn't mean I think conservation and anti-global warming efforts are pointless - there's no reason not to try to keep things as good as possible for as long as possible.

So to summarise, I don't see how natural can be considered good when everything that is supposedly unnatural is actually a part of it too. Besides, good and bad are human concepts, so shouldn't be applied to anything else anyway.

Apologies for length and / or massive tangent.
That's ok, you more so elaborated on my point about how arbitrary the term natural is anyway, whereas I already focused on attacking the positive connotations of it. Though I do disagree about how good and bad "shouldn't be applied to anything else" just because they're human concepts, but that's another story.

Well come to think of it I guess it depends what you mean by "our" survival; see my point about type 1 diabetes.

'we' and 'our' imply collective and collective survival implies not going extinct. the fact that individuals die is no particular problem for the claim.

Man, I thought this would have been a nice topic about sex and cheating significant-others. Or vengeance killings. Not a philosophical debate.

Somebody should put a prominent note up about that.

*walks away*

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2035/1604320099_a20244153a.jpg

chris clarke's awesome post on evo-psych (http://faultline.org/index.php/site/comments/belief_in_evolutionary_psychology_may_be_hardwired_study_says/)

'we' and 'our' imply collective and collective survival implies not going extinct. the fact that individuals die is no particular problem for the claim.
Ok, but remember; that implies survival of the fittest without respect for individual dignity, similar to the Nazis in that sense. My point was about how nature didn't give me everything I needed to survive. I just can't help but think people who associate technology with luxury seem uninformed about medical issues, but I suppose it all depends on what you regard survival as meaning.

Ok, but remember; that implies survival of the fittest without respect for individual dignity, similar to the Nazis in that sense.

not really. firstly because the nazis are not a force of natural selection, but secondly because the fitness peak in humans is skewed towards those that best care for others.

My point was about how nature didn't give me everything I needed to survive.

well, nature doesn't give me everything i require to live forever either. hardly seems like a fair criticism of the claim.

Nature kinda sucks anyway. I'm inclined to unfavourably view any system that came up with parasitic worms that can burrow through your skin and other soft spots like eyeballs, then deposit their larvae inside you to feed upon necrotising flesh and possibly organs. Just one example. :)

chris clarke's awesome post on evo-psych (http://faultline.org/index.php/site/comments/belief_in_evolutionary_psychology_may_be_hardwired_study_says/)

It took me a while to confirm that that was humor.

You know, though, nature really does give you everything you need to survive. Human intelligence is a natural evolutionary trait. The capacity for invention and ingenuity are natural consequences of that evolutionary trait, and the long march of technological advancement can be traced back to that same trait, and the needs of various societies down the ages.

Not to mention that everything, from computers to jet planes, are natural, when you get right down to it. After all, it's not like their components are conjured up from somewhere.

Everything is natural. Good, bad, neutral and whatever else...all of it is natural. Some of it might be made by humans or invented by humans, but it's still made out of natural components and developed by human intelligence, which evolved naturally as part of our species' history.

Everything is natural. Good, bad, neutral and whatever else...all of it is natural. Some of it might be made by humans or invented by humans, but it's still made out of natural components and developed by human intelligence, which evolved naturally as part of our species' history.

and everything is made out of hydrogen too, right?

and everything is made out of hydrogen too, right?

Directly or indirectly, yes. Just like we all come from star-stuff.

Directly or indirectly, yes. Just like we all come from star-stuff.

its the indirectly that matters - there are useful distinctions to be made beyond the most fundamental

well there's certainly nothing "natural" about anything the mutual coerciveness of human society comes up with. and that includes ANY idiology, as well as the very existence of symbolic value, let alone putting it ahead of any kind of reality.

it is natural however for people to be individualy creative, and want to play with high tec toys. and everything in nature, loves to explore and learn. most creatures that live learn the hard way to be cautious in doing so however, and pay attention to where they are and what is going on arround them.

it is natural for carnivours to eat other living organisms. it is natural for herbivours to eat vegitation and keep an eye over their shoulder for preditors and be able to run fast. it is natural for omnivours to do both.

it is natural for creative, inovative creatures, such as humans, to invent ways to avoid have to run fast. it is not natural to accept the impostion of hierarchy. it is natural to cooperate for mutual survival.

and of course it is natural to eat, sleep, defficate and have sex, or seek to.

there is nothing 'natural' about the soverignty of nations. only that creative spirit that unfortunately also facilitates enabling them to exist, and makes all these other UNatural things humans take for granted, possible.

=^^=
.../\...

The OP is paraphrasing, to a needlessly extended degree, George Carlin. I agree with the OP anyway.

not really. firstly because the nazis are not a force of natural selection, but secondly because the fitness peak in humans is skewed towards those that best care for others.



well, nature doesn't give me everything i require to live forever either. hardly seems like a fair criticism of the claim.
A questionable assumption, at most. Again it depends on what you see as "nature" with the point I made about it being arbitrary, and in a way technology being part of the course of nature. As I mentioned in another thread, cryonics would be a good stepping stone towards an artificial afterlife and when I was talking to a biochem faculty member at MUN Orientation about it he said it'd be feasible in my lifetime; that could let me go far into the future, perhaps far enough that an artificial afterlife would be developed... if appeals to nature eventually loses its stranglehold, that is, ironically since it's the same fallacy I'm arguing against.

But let's say we grant your assumption, so you're saying it's inherently natural for little kids to die in-ketoacidosis without it being a consequence of those who end up in it? That isn't a fair criticism of the claim? Then just bear in mind that's a big jump from what I was referring to, people who seem to claim that all our needs were provided by nature, when really, since healthcare is considered "essential" then not all our needs were. What I'm talking about is what seems to be a deluded perception of nature on some people's part, I see people commenting in videos about experiments on animals being "un-natural" and that "animals are innocent" or that they'd rather the cats and mice being experimented on be "set free" so they could just "naturally live in the forests in harmony" or BS like that.

The OP is paraphrasing, to a needlessly extended degree, George Carlin. I agree with the OP anyway.
What's OP mean?

That applies to many kinds of things. This post is about the fallacy of "appeals to nature" and how poor reasoning it is, whether the "point" being defended is a physical or ethical one...

...So basically, "natural" is a word with a questionable level of meaning, contradictory in its popularity among humans, connected to misconceptions, and used to defend or attack all sorts of random different things in illogical ways. Of course, I like how it breaks the ideology labels by having the same thing that's used against homosexuality being used in favour of marijuana, when both are considered "left-wing" things to defend. But overall, I think the fallacy of appeals to nature really needs to be slammed down on for the idiotic BS it is.

Any notion applied without logic is going to lead you to stupid and harmful conclusions, but that doesn't mean that the whole thing is "stupid BS."

In recent decades many disasters have resulted from a failure to understand nature and make proper use of it. Landslides in Middle America are the result of unnatural deforestation and land clearing (no tree roots to hold the earth together.) Giant wildfires on the West coast are (at least in part) the result of unnatural forest protection, because the natural cycle in the western US is for small wildfires to clear out some of the undergrowth and encourage new growth without damaging the biggest and oldest trees which hold the land together while new trees are growing.

If people had thought to appreciate nature (in the sense of recognize its importance) then maybe we wouldn't loose so many lives and homes each year.

Cholera was the result of unnatural population density. Polio was the result of unnatural sanitation employed to combat cholera. There's even some indication that allergies are the result of being unnaturally free of parasites.

Yes, there are idiots that think that everything in nature is good in all ways and don't understand that just because wolves in the area is good for the Bison population as a whole, doesn't mean that it's good for the sick old bison that is currently being devoured. But there are also idiots who think that celebrex is the latest and most heavily promoted prescription pain reliever, and so it must be much better than aspirin. It isn't and aspirin helps prevent heart attacks where celebrex causes them.

Being natural does make things more likely to be good, just not good for everything. A cliff is good for maintaining a local bird population and avoiding floods. It's bad for letting your kids jump off of.

There is a sound scientific basis behind the idea that natural things provide benefits. Parallel evolution.

We evolved for the last few thousand years eating grain. So whole grain is needed to help fight colon cancer and heart disease.

We evolved eating a huge variety of plants so our digestive systems evolved to make use of things that are poisonous to other animals. Like how citric acid kills some frogs, but to us it's vitamin C.

We evolved to consume alcohol so now our hearts rely on it for some relief in pumping blood.

We evolved to metabolize marijuana, so it's good medicine for people who are too nauseous to eat. We did not evolve to metabolize thalidomide, so it led to some catastrophic birth defects.

Yes, nature has it's plusses and minuses. In many cases we've had time to learn or develop ways to minimize the minuses and accentuate the plusses. But when science provides us with a new way to do what we had been doing all along, (like celebrex when we had asprine, or phen fen when we have diet and exercise) then we get disasters like mutated babies, heart disease, and giant wildfires.

Any notion applied without logic is going to lead you to stupid and harmful conclusions, but that doesn't mean that the whole thing is "stupid BS."

In recent decades many disasters have resulted from a failure to understand nature and make proper use of it. Landslides in Middle America are the result of unnatural deforestation and land clearing (no tree roots to hold the earth together.) Giant wildfires on the West coast are (at least in part) the result of unnatural forest protection, because the natural cycle in the western US is for small wildfires to clear out some of the undergrowth and encourage new growth without damaging the biggest and oldest trees which hold the land together while new trees are growing.

If people had thought to appreciate nature (in the sense of recognize its importance) then maybe we wouldn't loose so many lives and homes each year.

Cholera was the result of unnatural population density. Polio was the result of unnatural sanitation employed to combat cholera. There's even some indication that allergies are the result of being unnaturally free of parasites.

Yes, there are idiots that think that everything in nature is good in all ways and don't understand that just because wolves in the area is good for the Bison population as a whole, doesn't mean that it's good for the sick old bison that is currently being devoured. But there are also idiots who think that celebrex is the latest and most heavily promoted prescription pain reliever, and so it must be much better than aspirin. It isn't and aspirin helps prevent heart attacks where celebrex causes them.

Being natural does make things more likely to be good, just not good for everything. A cliff is good for maintaining a local bird population and avoiding floods. It's bad for letting your kids jump off of.

There is a sound scientific basis behind the idea that natural things provide benefits. Parallel evolution.

We evolved for the last few thousand years eating grain. So whole grain is needed to help fight colon cancer and heart disease.

We evolved eating a huge variety of plants so our digestive systems evolved to make use of things that are poisonous to other animals. Like how citric acid kills some frogs, but to us it's vitamin C.

We evolved to consume alcohol so now our hearts rely on it for some relief in pumping blood.

We evolved to metabolize marijuana, so it's good medicine for people who are too nauseous to eat. We did not evolve to metabolize thalidomide, so it led to some catastrophic birth defects.

Yes, nature has it's plusses and minuses. In many cases we've had time to learn or develop ways to minimize the minuses and accentuate the plusses. But when science provides us with a new way to do what we had been doing all along, (like celebrex when we had asprine, or phen fen when we have diet and exercise) then we get disasters like mutated babies, heart disease, and giant wildfires.
Actually, with regards to the "idiotic BS" part I just wanted to have an impactful conclusion and now that I think about it perhaps it wasn't necessary to be so condescending. Still though, I think the way people use natural as a positive term is a bad idea, given the wrong direction ON TOP OF the whole "arbitrary" issue...

Again, in the second paragraph, you use the term "un-natural"; we used our bodies and brains to develop technology, and the harm it did when misused was bad but that doesn't make it "un-natural". One does not have to go by appeals to nature in order to be an environmentalist. In fact, at MUN I'm a member of Project Green, (an environmental group) and on one evening, before one of our meetings, I was talking to another member on the stairs and as he got up to leave he poured out some soda onto the stone side of the stairs taking care to avoid the soil and then said "just in case, though I don't know, it might be good for the plants, it's mostly sugar I think" and then I mentioned "well it's carbonated, so it'd have carbonic acid in it... but then again, so does rainwater, and maybe the plants there are supposed to be low-pH plants... goes to show you really shouldn't think of artificial as being less healthy" and he said "and when you really think about it, what is artificial? People just took things that already existed in nature, and rearranged them in a different way so really what's artifical has to be natural" and I added "because everything artificial is natural since it has its roots in the natural world..." and he said "exactly" and I went on "look at this, people having managed to make these buildings, people evolved from other animals and used naturally-existing materials and our brains to build these buildings, that's part of the course of nature, the fact that we're standing here talking about this is part of the course of nature..."

Actually, I guess to only show the dialogue doesn't really reflect the feel of the conversation... it was at night, outside, while looking around different buildings of the university. But nonetheless my point is that the only person with an interpretation of the term "natural" close to mine was a fellow environmental volunteer. This makes me think that it's environmentalists who think this way, I'm guessing it must have something to do with our paying attention to the fact that materials used for civilization have to come from somewhere and it all boils down to eventually having originally came from nature.

You talk about "un-natural" population density. Even assuming you mean in the context of meaning human, at the same time appeals to nature can be used to encourage people to reproduce. Granted, I'm not sure of specific examples of this being the case but I'm guessing some say things like "oh it's natural to breed" or "it's natural that our role as organisms is to reproduce" or stuff like that. I guess it depends on how you look at it.

Yes, I do agree evolution makes it easier to work with "nature" than against it, but I'm referring to people who act like something being natural MUST mean it's good when within civilization its use isn't really all that good. (E.g. marijuana)

Oh, and just for the record, citric acid isn't vitamin C, ascorbic acid is.

What's OP mean?Original Post or Original Poster, depending on context.

Original Post or Original Poster, depending on context.
Ah ok thanks.

Oh and by the way Free Soviets, the Nazis "not being a force of natural selection" is irrelevant; the survival of the fittest without consideration for individual dignity is ultimately the unethical principle here, whether done by something conscious or without consciousness. Remember, people killed by Hitler were killed for terrible reasons, but if not for technology, people with type 1 diabetes would have been killed for no reason at all since nobody chooses to get it. Would you be saying the same thing as you've said so far here if you ended up with type 1 diabetes?

Everything is natural. Good, bad, neutral and whatever else...all of it is natural. Some of it might be made by humans or invented by humans, but it's still made out of natural components and developed by human intelligence, which evolved naturally as part of our species' history.

That's not what natural means. If everything in the universe, including the completely artificial was natural simply because things that already exist in nature create it, then the word would be meaningless.

Yes, human intelligence and the capacity for changing the landscape and creating complex technology evolved naturally. However, the word natural specifically means the absence of the fruits of that technological capacity.

Actually, with regards to the "idiotic BS" part I just wanted to have an impactful conclusion and now that I think about it perhaps it wasn't necessary to be so condescending. Still though, I think the way people use natural as a positive term is a bad idea, given the wrong direction ON TOP OF the whole "arbitrary" issue...

Again, in the second paragraph, you use the term "un-natural"; we used our bodies and brains to develop technology, and the harm it did when misused was bad but that doesn't make it "un-natural". One does not have to go by appeals to nature in order to be an environmentalist....

Yes, I do agree evolution makes it easier to work with "nature" than against it, but I'm referring to people who act like something being natural MUST mean it's good when within civilization its use isn't really all that good. (E.g. marijuana)

Oh, and just for the record, citric acid isn't vitamin C, ascorbic acid is.

There is often a qualitative difference between things that exist without human intervention and things that only exist because humans make them. Just because humans make things that never existed before out of things that did exist before doesn't mean that those things are natural. Remember my point about parallel evolution?

We evolved with most of the chemicals on earth all over the place coming into our bodies. Our bodies came up with ways to get most of those things out, or to make use of them. Soot may pollute the air around coal-burning power plants, but eventually that soot will find its way into the ground and the carbon will become new trees, or some other kind of plant.

Teflon however will not. All manner of chemicals that were never a part of the environment before are now showing up in the breast milk of women in Florida and polar bears in Alaska. And our bodies never came up with ways to cope with them because they never had to. Some of them might be harmless. But we know that others are not. Nature doesn't put substantial amounts of mercury in the water. If it did, perhaps it would be a vital nutrient by now. But instead, it's a poison.

I agree that nature, just like technology and the free market, is not some sort of force with an agenda. It's not really even a particular kind of thing. It's just verbal shorthand, and unfortunately verbal shorthand often becomes mental shorthand.

Some people think that natural is good even though, as you say snake bites are natural.

But some people think that lowering taxes means that the government will be better able to pay its debts, even though a moments thought will show that there comes a point where the government isn't collecting any money at all.

Some people thing that the newest medicines on the market are the best, even though they are the least well tested and understood and often end up getting recalled because of fatal side-effects.

The problem is not the memes. The problem is that too many people just aren't able to handle complex thoughts.

From the title I thought this would be about how much condoms suck.

That's not what natural means. If everything in the universe, including the completely artificial was natural simply because things that already exist in nature create it, then the word would be meaningless.

Yes, human intelligence and the capacity for changing the landscape and creating complex technology evolved naturally. However, the word natural specifically means the absence of the fruits of that technological capacity.
And that's what I'm implying.

There is often a qualitative difference between things that exist without human intervention and things that only exist because humans make them. Just because humans make things that never existed before out of things that did exist before doesn't mean that those things are natural. Remember my point about parallel evolution?

We evolved with most of the chemicals on earth all over the place coming into our bodies. Our bodies came up with ways to get most of those things out, or to make use of them. Soot may pollute the air around coal-burning power plants, but eventually that soot will find its way into the ground and the carbon will become new trees, or some other kind of plant.

Teflon however will not. All manner of chemicals that were never a part of the environment before are now showing up in the breast milk of women in Florida and polar bears in Alaska. And our bodies never came up with ways to cope with them because they never had to. Some of them might be harmless. But we know that others are not. Nature doesn't put substantial amounts of mercury in the water. If it did, perhaps it would be a vital nutrient by now. But instead, it's a poison.

I agree that nature, just like technology and the free market, is not some sort of force with an agenda. It's not really even a particular kind of thing. It's just verbal shorthand, and unfortunately verbal shorthand often becomes mental shorthand.

Some people think that natural is good even though, as you say snake bites are natural.

But some people think that lowering taxes means that the government will be better able to pay its debts, even though a moments thought will show that there comes a point where the government isn't collecting any money at all.

Some people thing that the newest medicines on the market are the best, even though they are the least well tested and understood and often end up getting recalled because of fatal side-effects.

The problem is not the memes. The problem is that too many people just aren't able to handle complex thoughts.
Well, agreed there. I do agree that the idea of appeals to novelty or the laissez-faire purist approach are both fallacies, but that doesn't make appeals to nature less of a fallacy. True enough though, I suppose it's a good analogy for the issue of considering exceptions. With regards to your earlier point about "doesn't make it natural" again it depends what you think natural means... but yeah, that's a fairly insightful post, I guess I could see why basing it on something being natural might be a good idea in other cases...

Again it depends on what you see as "nature" with the point I made about it being arbitrary, and in a way technology being part of the course of nature.

try out this definition: all technology that cannot be invented, created, and maintained by undomesticated humans is artificial.

the fact that natural things are used to make artificial ones surprises no one - we have always accepted this, and it therefore doesn't seem to inherently conflict with the preexistent distinction. at least not obviously.

But let's say we grant your assumption, so you're saying it's inherently natural for little kids to die in-ketoacidosis without it being a consequence of those who end up in it? That isn't a fair criticism of the claim?

sure, in so far as the causes of it exist in nature. and yeah, that's not a fair criticism of the claim that nature gives us everything we need to survive. our survival doesn't require each of us individually must live forever. your criticism rests on fallaciously misreading the claim (at least in so far as we assume your claimants aren't just retarded, which, since they aren't here to defend themselves, we must).

but if not for technology, people with type 1 diabetes would have been killed for no reason at all since nobody chooses to get it.

interestingly, undomesticated humans don't appear to get diabetes in any significant numbers. shit, while domesticated but not westernized ones do get it, they do so at significantly lower rates. in other words, if not for 'technology', people wouldn't be killed by type 1 diabetes at all. perhaps you want a different example?

interestingly, undomesticated humans don't appear to get diabetes in any significant numbers. shit, while domesticated but not westernized ones do get it, they do so at significantly lower rates. in other words, if not for 'technology', people wouldn't be killed by type 1 diabetes at all. perhaps you want a different example?
How can you prove they even don't? I'm sure without diagnosis one could mistake the diabetes for many other diseases, since someone just becomes thirsty and tired then weak and pale and dies... it'd be hard to tell in nature. Granted, you could say maybe type 1 diabetes genes, assuming it's genetic (remember we don't even know what causes it) would be wiped out by natural selection, but neither of my parents have type 1 diabetes and I got it, so perhaps it might be recessive enough not to show itself until too late... why would you blame type 1 diabetes on technology, what are you suggesting technology does that would contribute to it?

try out this definition: all technology that cannot be invented, created, and maintained by undomesticated humans is artificial.

the fact that natural things are used to make artificial ones surprises no one - we have always accepted this, and it therefore doesn't seem to inherently conflict with the preexistent distinction. at least not obviously.



sure, in so far as the causes of it exist in nature. and yeah, that's not a fair criticism of the claim that nature gives us everything we need to survive. our survival doesn't require each of us individually must live forever. your criticism rests on fallaciously misreading the claim (at least in so far as we assume your claimants aren't just retarded, which, since they aren't here to defend themselves, we must).
Ok, so the problem with little kids dying for reasons that aren't consequences of their own actions is that they... don't live forever? Ok, so would you say Hitler didn't do anything wrong since the people he killed were going to eventually die? Again, yeah I'm going back to my analogy about Hitler. Yes he acted out of opportunism rather than based on justice or who deserved what... but nature doesn't act on justice either. It's completely at random, not based on who deserves what. Really the opposite side from that whole "nature gave us all we needed then HUMANS intruded on it with their GREED" approach huh?

*snip

The best way to parry the "unnatural" argument, is to just say "so what?" which evokes silence. :D

How can you prove they even don't?

by checking - we've looked.

interestingly, undomesticated humans don't appear to get diabetes in any significant numbers. shit, while domesticated but not westernized ones do get it, they do so at significantly lower rates. in other words, if not for 'technology', people wouldn't be killed by type 1 diabetes at all. perhaps you want a different example?

Man, I can't wait for that society where we all sniff each others butts and live in the dirt and the naturally largest male beats the shit out of people who piss him off and we all live to the ripe old age of thirty.

I would totally give up the risk of type I diabetes for that.

Ok, so the problem with little kids dying for reasons that aren't consequences of their own actions is that they... don't live forever?

no. people die. fact of the world. therefore, the fact that people die in nature is no argument against the idea that nature is enough for our collective survival.

Ok, so would you say Hitler didn't do anything wrong since the people he killed were going to eventually die?

no. how do you think that follows from anything i said? have i ever equated natural itself with good?

Again, yeah I'm going back to my analogy about Hitler.

needlessly, since it is irrelevant. what exactly do you think it shows again?

nature doesn't act on justice either. It's completely at random, not based on who deserves what. Really the opposite side from that whole "nature gave us all we needed then HUMANS intruded on it with their GREED" approach huh?

nature's lack of justice has what exactly to do with the fact that we need it and we've fucked things up for ourselves and other morally valuable entities? maybe i'm unclear on what these adversaries of yours are advocating...

no. how do you think that follows from anything i said? have i ever equated natural itself with good?
I got the impression from you rebutaling my post that you disagreed with the main idea of my post, that equating natural itself with good was a bad idea...

nature's lack of justice has what exactly to do with the fact that we need it and we've fucked things up for ourselves and other morally valuable entities? maybe i'm unclear on what these adversaries of yours are advocating...
And YOU'RE the one who assumed as to what the people I was talking about meant without seeing the context of what I was referring to.

As for the part about nature's lack of justice, it shows that something being "natural" or "un-natural" isn't a legitimate moral point, therefore the former is not a legitimate defense of marijuana nor is the latter a legitimate condemnation of homosexuality.

Of course we need nature, that's what we had to start with. But we also need to deviate from what goes on in it to be civilized, and we need to realize that something coming from it doesn't make it any better, and need to appreciate medical technology for what it's done for us, etc...

Man, I can't wait for that society where we all sniff each others butts and live in the dirt and the naturally largest male beats the shit out of people who piss him off and we all live to the ripe old age of thirty.

I would totally give up the risk of type I diabetes for that.

besides the fact that that is not an accurate description of natural human life, i don't recall using the lack of diabetes as an argument in favor of getting rid of our technology.

I got the impression from you rebutaling my post that you disagreed with the main idea of my post, that equating natural itself with good was a bad idea...

if i intended to dispute that, i would have. the natural in total is certainly not identical with the good, and there are far easier ways to demonstrate this than your method, which is relying on equivocation. if the natural itself is good, then murder is good, then hurricanes are good, then mass extinctions are good.

And YOU'RE the one who assumed as to what the people I was talking about meant without seeing the context of what I was referring to.

if you want to beat up on some idea, use its best defenders, not its weakest and most confused.

As for the part about nature's lack of justice, it shows that something being "natural" or "un-natural" isn't a legitimate moral point, therefore the former is not a legitimate defense of marijuana nor is the latter a legitimate condemnation of homosexuality.

perhaps, though this could perhaps be mitigated by moving from the natural per se to talk of our natural moral intuitions under thoughtful contemplation and our evolved proclivities.

(and it should be noted that homosexuality is clearly natural anyways, which does much more to undermine that sort of claim)

Of course we need nature, that's what we had to start with. But we also need to deviate from what goes on in it to be civilized, and we need to realize that something coming from it doesn't make it any better, and need to appreciate medical technology for what it's done for us, etc...

sure, not everything natural is better, but for a large class of things it is, simply because we and the planet evolved to use and deal with them, while lots of artificial things have a wide range of negative effects that are not immediately apparent and can be quite devastating.

We evolved for the last few thousand years eating grain. So whole grain is needed to help fight colon cancer and heart disease.

Errr, wrong!
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/11/jfs-exclusive-whats-evidence-cancers.html

And yet, despite medical technology, people seem to be inclined to distrust the "artificial" and think "natural" somehow means better. As I mentioned in the aspartame thread, some people act like something being "more natural" means that it's somehow better for you. With that kind of reasoning one could say, if bitten by a rattlesnake, don't go to a hospital (not sure if that's what's done for it, but whatever) but just let the all-natural rattlesnake venom do whatever it oh-so-naturally does. It's ridiculous.

Well my point of view is that if you're stupid enough to play with venomous snakes, you probably deserve to die. And if you lie down on your pillow in your house and get bitten, it's probably because you took the snake's home.

As for aspartame, I think it's better to have real sugar than some artificial chemical, regardless of its harmfulness. If people only had sugar as an option, it wouldn't be used as much and people would use more healthier options, such as water over soda.

Errr, wrong!
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/11/jfs-exclusive-whats-evidence-cancers.html

Um, nothing in that link contradicts what I was saying. I didn't say that being fat causes cancer. I said that eating whole grains helps prevent a particular kind of cancer.

And it is well known, and supported by clinical studies that high-fat diets lead to colon cancer. Certain hormones in the body cause certain kinds of cancer. Too much testosterone causes one, too much estrogen causes another. And to much of a form of insulin in the colon, produced to digest fat, leads to colon cancer.

But honestly, your post isn't just wrong, it's incoherent. I say that eating grains help fight cancer and you show me a book review that says there's a book that has no evidence that being fat causes cancer. Not even evidence that it's caused by something else, but that it's not caused by something I wasn't even talking about. The two have nothing to do with each other.

I'll go you one better. Here are seven books (http://www.seussville.com/lb/catalog2.php?x=Classic) that provide no evidence whatsoever that cancer even exists.

interestingly, undomesticated humans don't appear to get diabetes in any significant numbers. shit, while domesticated but not westernized ones do get it, they do so at significantly lower rates. in other words, if not for 'technology', people wouldn't be killed by type 1 diabetes at all. perhaps you want a different example?

That is true. Of course, it's also true that most of them are killed by something else a lot earlier than Type 1 Diabetes. At the same time, it's also true that if they don't know that condition exists, it's a lot harder to measure its occurrence because there won't really be any records of it (not to mention the person's likely already dead because of it).

I'll go you one better. Here are seven books (http://www.seussville.com/lb/catalog2.php?x=Classic) that provide no evidence whatsoever that cancer even exists.

Wrong. In The Butter Battle Book, the Doctor shows a slightly higher cancer risk in Yooks. Dietary factors were suspect. Of chief concern were green eggs and ham.

Internet arguments on NSG are unnatural, because computers require radical breaks with the natural state of human beings.

The whole Internet is unnatural, as indeed is intelligent thought (when compared to the whole fauna of the planet), but I think NSG is on average more unnatural - just the way I like it. :D

if you want to beat up on some idea, use its best defenders, not its weakest and most confused.
And did it ever occur to you once that perhaps the idea that more natural must mean better is primarily the idea that I mean to beat up on?

perhaps, though this could perhaps be mitigated by moving from the natural per se to talk of our natural moral intuitions under thoughtful contemplation and our evolved proclivities.
But evolution's survival of the fittest isn't justice-based though. Our moral judgement shouldn't be based on instinct (I assume that's what you mean by intuition) but on careful thought about who deserves what. Granted, that's subjective to some extent anyway, but when you really think about it; what isn't?

sure, not everything natural is better, but for a large class of things it is, simply because we and the planet evolved to use and deal with them, while lots of artificial things have a wide range of negative effects that are not immediately apparent and can be quite devastating.
Well, we should acknowledge evolution's effects (of course, I'm guessing both of us would agree that it's not a good thing to deny evolution) but we should also remember that since we live in civilized society, the same things that might have benefitted us in the wild might not benefit us now.

try out this definition: all technology that cannot be invented, created, and maintained by undomesticated humans is artificial.

the fact that natural things are used to make artificial ones surprises no one - we have always accepted this, and it therefore doesn't seem to inherently conflict with the preexistent distinction. at least not obviously.

sure, in so far as the causes of it exist in nature. and yeah, that's not a fair criticism of the claim that nature gives us everything we need to survive. our survival doesn't require each of us individually must live forever. your criticism rests on fallaciously misreading the claim (at least in so far as we assume your claimants aren't just retarded, which, since they aren't here to defend themselves, we must).

Well said! Well said! I completely agree. There is nothing natural about skyscrapers, B-52s, or tvs, etc. 'Simple' tools, such as clothing, spears, etc are. They can be maintained using readily available materials- with little to no effect on the environment.

interestingly, undomesticated humans don't appear to get diabetes in any significant numbers. shit, while domesticated but not westernized ones do get it, they do so at significantly lower rates. in other words, if not for 'technology', people wouldn't be killed by type 1 diabetes at all. perhaps you want a different example?

Another good point! Civilization caused many of the diseases and illnesses it is only now beginning to treat. Civilization caused humans to become smaller, weaker, frail, and led to large scale warfare, authoritarian regimes, oppression, gender inequality (there were gender differences before-but each sex was appreciated-and women were the freest they've ever been in pre-civilization societies [ie: hunter gatherer societies]), etc.

Natural is good or bad. Like other posters have said, being bit by a snake is bad for the person, but could be good for the snake, as it drove off a threat. Each situation has winners and losers. That is natural.

And did it ever occur to you once that perhaps the idea that more natural must mean better is primarily the idea that I mean to beat up on?

my point is that nobody will hold to the position that anything natural is always good. anybody who looks like they are holding that point will retreat from it at the slightest application of logical pressure, as it is so very easily shown to be incompatible with their own beliefs.

But evolution's survival of the fittest isn't justice-based though. Our moral judgement shouldn't be based on instinct (I assume that's what you mean by intuition) but on careful thought about who deserves what. Granted, that's subjective to some extent anyway, but when you really think about it; what isn't?

nah, moral intuition isn't really about instinct. its more about our ethical feelings.

as for the lack of justice in evolution, that doesn't really matter. evolution can and has formed creatures that can and do seek justice as a matter of natural inclination. consider the good of this particular aspect of the natural to be an emergent property which could not have been predicted from its component natural parts.

Well, we should acknowledge evolution's effects (of course, I'm guessing both of us would agree that it's not a good thing to deny evolution) but we should also remember that since we live in civilized society, the same things that might have benefitted us in the wild might not benefit us now.

sure, though it seems to me that we should start from the position of accepting that things closer to what we and the planet evolved to deal with are better than novel recent creations until we have good evidence otherwise. because, frankly, a huge proportion of our new creations have had terrible effects on both us and on the world at large. hell, from an objective standpoint, civilization itself only recently started benefiting us on any level other than the pure numbers game, and its still doing terrible terrible things to the world that will probably wind up fucking us over in the not-so-distant future.

sure, though it seems to me that we should start from the position of accepting that things closer to what we and the planet evolved to deal with are better than novel recent creations until we have good evidence otherwise. because, frankly, a huge proportion of our new creations have had terrible effects on both us and on the world at large. hell, from an objective standpoint, civilization itself only recently started benefiting us on any level other than the pure numbers game, and its still doing terrible terrible things to the world that will probably wind up fucking us over in the not-so-distant future.

That is the point of evolution, though: it's a numbers game. Evolution is based entirely on endless growth and expansion to as large an extent as possible, and we've pretty much managed to do that better than anybody else. The natural world doesn't really care about equilibrium, or how many species survive, or anything else; those are human concerns based off of our knowledge of how an ecosystem works. We are the only thing capable of saving the world, both from and for ourselves and from a much larger existential standpoint for all life on this planet.

The thing is, you can't stop the development of civilization or technology, because they do exactly what evolution wants us to do; it makes us better able to increase our population, disseminate our genes, and adapt us to different environments. Even if civilization vanishes today, it would just arise again in a fairly short amount of time because of the sheer competitive advantage it offers. Civilization really is the only thing that can save mankind from itself, because it gives us the knowledge and ability to act outside of the short-sighted prerogatives of less intelligent animals (or bacteria, fungi, and viruses if we want to look at unrestricted exponential growth) and to curtail the effects our biological instincts have caused.

First off, we start with what it even means for something to be "natural"; that it exists "in nature"; already, it could be considered arbitrary since humans are part of nature, and as such, so is what we do. It's not like we came from nowhere; we evolved from other animals, (nature) took naturally existing materials (nature) and rearragned them as tools using natural parts of our bodies including our hands and brains, and used those tools to develop more complex tools; so in a way, modern technology is, ironically, part of the course of nature.

Glad I'm not the only one to realise this.

"It's natural" is NOT a legitimate argument...


No shit. Eating with a fork isn't natural either, but I prefer it to eating with my hands. Most times.

And when did it become natural for humans to live past thirty on a regular basis? As one of those post-thirty folks, I'd probably object to enforcement of the natural order.

And when did it become natural for humans to live past thirty on a regular basis?

as long as there have been humans

as long as there have been humans

Not really. Average age of mortality in ancient Greece was 18. The Romans upped it to 21.

as long as there have been humans

It was a lot less likely, though; many, many more people died young relative to the number who made it to old age. The extreme end of longevity has increased considerably over the past century, along with reductions in infant and child mortality.

That is the point of evolution, though: it's a numbers game. Evolution is based entirely on endless growth and expansion to as large an extent as possible, and we've pretty much managed to do that better than anybody else.

not really - we're still blown away by all sorts of microbes, for examples. and in any case, so what? not all things that evolve are good - merely some things that have.

The natural world doesn't really care about equilibrium, or how many species survive, or anything else

well, if we instead read 'care about' to be trends towards, it most certainly does.

The thing is, you can't stop the development of civilization or technology

the burnt out jungle covered remains of civilizations past says you're wrong on this point.

Even if civilization vanishes today, it would just arise again in a fairly short amount of time because of the sheer competitive advantage it offers.

evidence for this position? civilization requires a number of independent factors all happening at once to arise, and from the looks of things, those conditions are fairly rare.

Civilization really is the only thing that can save mankind from itself, because it gives us the knowledge and ability to act outside of the short-sighted prerogatives of less intelligent animals (or bacteria, fungi, and viruses if we want to look at unrestricted exponential growth) and to curtail the effects our biological instincts have caused.

so undomesticated humans lack the knowledge and ability to act outside of the short-sighted prerogatives of non-human life? really?

Not really. Average age of mortality in ancient Greece was 18. The Romans upped it to 21.

but if you made it to 5, you mainly made it to 40. and if you made it to 40 you mainly made it to 65. and so on up to our still-present natural lifespan.

in ancient athens, men didn't get married until they were 30.

It was a lot less likely, though; many, many more people died young relative to the number who made it to old age. The extreme end of longevity has increased considerably over the past century, along with reductions in infant and child mortality.

well, a lot less likely compared to the total number of people born - but high infant mortality is pretty well standard for all life.

for wild-type humans it was not much different if you started counting from those that made it out of really early childhood. for civilized humans without good sanitation systems and modern medicine, things were pretty bleak though.

as for the far end of longevity, we've actually only really upped things by a few heavily medicated and machine-dependent years.

That applies to many kinds of things. This post is about the fallacy of "appeals to nature" and how poor reasoning it is, whether the "point" being defended is a physical or ethical one...

First off, we start with what it even means for something to be "natural"; that it exists "in nature"; already, it could be considered arbitrary since humans are part of nature, and as such, so is what we do. It's not like we came from nowhere; we evolved from other animals, (nature) took naturally existing materials (nature) and rearragned them as tools using natural parts of our bodies including our hands and brains, and used those tools to develop more complex tools; so in a way, modern technology is, ironically, part of the course of nature. In a way it's the course of nature that I say this. But let's say we try to give natural a meaning and say it means what exists in the "natural" world EXCEPT for humans. If this is the case, to use "natural" as a positive term is to imply that everything else is better than humans. That sounds rather misanthropic, which makes it seem bizarre for it to be popular among humans. (Well, assuming it is; it somewhat seems to be)

Some say that "nature" gave us everything we needed to survive, but this is a myth. Hospitals use technology to save lives. One could say that things like heart disease and cancer could be attributed to technology decreasing exercise and increasing pollution... well, they do contribute to it, but I doubt the lack of technology would completely eliminate them... but even then, what about AIDS? Of course, some don't stop there. I've talked to some religious person on YouTube who claims that AIDS is a man-made disease, which to me sounds like a conspiracy theory. To be fair, perhaps it might be valid, I'm not sure, but whether it is or not, there is still one disease that completely disproves the myth that nature gave us everything we needed; type 1 diabetes. For millions of human beings, including myself, our bodies don't naturally produce insulin, the hormone which allows our cells to use the chemical energy in our bloodstream, and is therefore needed for survival. Imagine that, all of the complexity of the human body, and one missing hormone would've brought the whole thing down if technology didn't intervene; injecting insulin might not sound like technology, but it applies science, and by high school technology course definitions therefore counts as technology. Nature didn't give me everything I needed to survive, I needed technology.

And yet, despite medical technology, people seem to be inclined to distrust the "artificial" and think "natural" somehow means better. As I mentioned in the aspartame thread, some people act like something being "more natural" means that it's somehow better for you. With that kind of reasoning one could say, if bitten by a rattlesnake, don't go to a hospital (not sure if that's what's done for it, but whatever) but just let the all-natural rattlesnake venom do whatever it oh-so-naturally does. It's ridiculous.

Some even suggest that homosexuality is immoral just because it's not natural. Well I do think that's a questionable assumption actually but even assuming that, to suggest that something NOT being natural makes it LESS moral is if anything going in the wrong direction. Nature is all about survival of the fittest, the strong attacking the weak, I somehow doubt that justice is "natural". Sharks are known to eat their own young, so in that case cannibalism is "natural". Monkeys don't have restrictions about the ages of those involved in sexual activity like we humans do, so in that case paedophilia is "natural". So for cannibalism and paedophilia being natural, homosexuality not being natural is probably if anything a point in its favour. People even defend marijuana with this, saying things like "isn't making nature against the law a bit paranoid?" and while I'm in favour of legalizing it (for different reasons, obviously) I think that according to THAT kind of "reasoning" having cannibalism and paedophilia be illegal is "paranoid"...

So basically, "natural" is a word with a questionable level of meaning, contradictory in its popularity among humans, connected to misconceptions, and used to defend or attack all sorts of random different things in illogical ways. Of course, I like how it breaks the ideology labels by having the same thing that's used against homosexuality being used in favour of marijuana, when both are considered "left-wing" things to defend. But overall, I think the fallacy of appeals to nature really needs to be slammed down on for the idiotic BS it is.

The good old natural vs artificial argument.

Overall though, it annoys me to hear the "it's natural" argument coming out of anyone. Not so much because natural is necessary bad, but because those people tend to use that claim after they got no facts left to defend themselves.

However I think it's important to be more carious about artificial products, or anything new in general.

To argue that human is natural and so anything and everything we do is part of nature defeats the purpose of the argument as a whole. We can argue that artificial is a sub category of natural but I think that will lead us nowhere except in our understanding of the English language, so I wouldn't go there.

First of all, what is natural varies among species. We can't use shark behaviors to determine that it's natural for humans to do this as well. Pedophilia though is arguable because there are historical basis on how people use to act, and 18 being the age of consent is a relatively recent concept.

Since everyone here already post about how bad of an argument "it's natural" is, let us turn to another element of this argument. How much do we want to automatically jump in and support artificial ingredient, and how much do we want to be the first generation to be testing for long term effects?

Sure we can point at aspartame and say there's nothing wrong with it, but can we really say the same about something like partially hydrogenated vegetable oil?

Let's look at another example, plastics. I mean it's great, it's convenient, and it probably saved a lot of lives in this generation. But it's also something known to not be able to bio degrade. What exactly are the long term effects when the plastic start to break down into smaller and smaller pieces, how do we prevent them from spreading across ocean and water supplies, and how would it affect people a few generations down the line?

In terms of survivability, we have better medical now than before, but we also have WMD that can destroy our planet. I think it's too early for us to claim that our technology wouldn't eventually lead to our own destruction. Also another controversial topic is that life expectancy is also slightly on the decline. It brings concerns to rather or not today's technology is really moving people forward into a healthier life style.

So what I am saying is, sure I will go to a hospital for a snake bite, and I will welcome phosphoric acid and chlorine over lead and deadly bacterias in my water, but I won't rule out the possibility that artificial product might contain hidden harms that will not unfold itself until a few generations down the line.

However I think it's important to be more carious about artificial products, or anything new in general.

To argue that human is natural and so anything and everything we do is part of nature defeats the purpose of the argument as a whole. We can argue that artificial is a sub category of natural but I think that will lead us nowhere except in our understanding of the English language, so I wouldn't go there.


I read that first paragraph and came to the same idea about artificial being a sub-category of natural that you mentioned in the next paragraph. It was slightly creepy, but it's nice that someone else appears to have the same train of thought as me. :)

I think a lot of the disagreements in this thread are coming out of people having different ideas of the definition of natural and artificial. The general belief seems to be that natural and artificial are opposing categories, but really the point at which something goes from being natural to being artificial seems to be quite blurry. You could say that "artificial" is something that is constructed out of components that aren't readily available in nature, so that a chimp using a twig cut to a particular length to reach insects in a tree is natural, whereas a human using a rifle to hunt deer is artificial. The difference might seem obvious to some, but where exactly is the line? Using a gun could be considered to be an unfair advantage over the deer, as the deer has not had a chance to evolve attributes that allow it to avoid being shot, and it cannot create a tool to help it do so. The insects equally have not evolved to avoid the particular length of twig that the chimp uses, nor can they create a tool to avoid being caught by it.

The attribute humans and chimps have in common that makes the difference here is their intelligence, so perhaps this could be considered a defining point in what is artificial and what is not. I don't think many people would consider a chimp using a twig unnatural, however. Maybe it's because to us guns seem complicated enough to be artificial, whereas the use of twigs is too simple? But then maybe to chimps the use of twigs cut to particular lengths isn't obvious, and is seen as highly creative. This seems to suggest to me that because intelligence is relative, so is the level of artificiality.

In evolution every species does whatever it can to ensure the survival of itself - part of this comes naturally, while other parts may come from conscious thought. Sometimes certain attributes may evolve that give a species a significant advantage, sometimes the advantage is so great that the species reproduces too much and its population can't get enough food, reduces in number and may even die out, causing other species in the eco-system to die out too as a result. The way human civilization has developed now could be considered something like this on a huge scale - we evolved an attribute (our intelligence) that gave us so much of an advantage that the eco-system we are a part of is beginning to collapse. Unfortunately, it's happening in such a way that almost all, if not all, life on Earth is affected by it, and it appears a mass extinction has already begun. This is being directly caused by things including the pollution from the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and the over-hunting of species, which can all be considered artificial. Maybe a definition of "artificial" could be "natural, but much bigger".

I have a feeling I pretty much reiterated what I said in my last post.

That is the point of evolution, though: it's a numbers game. Evolution is based entirely on endless growth and expansion to as large an extent as possible, and we've pretty much managed to do that better than anybody else. The natural world doesn't really care about equilibrium, or how many species survive, or anything else; those are human concerns based off of our knowledge of how an ecosystem works. We are the only thing capable of saving the world, both from and for ourselves and from a much larger existential standpoint for all life on this planet.

The thing is, you can't stop the development of civilization or technology, because they do exactly what evolution wants us to do; it makes us better able to increase our population, disseminate our genes, and adapt us to different environments. Even if civilization vanishes today, it would just arise again in a fairly short amount of time because of the sheer competitive advantage it offers. Civilization really is the only thing that can save mankind from itself, because it gives us the knowledge and ability to act outside of the short-sighted prerogatives of less intelligent animals (or bacteria, fungi, and viruses if we want to look at unrestricted exponential growth) and to curtail the effects our biological instincts have caused.

It is about numbers, but we, as humans have the ability to recognize that we are massively overpopulated. People resisted agriculture, and thus rise of technology, for many years, and in some places continue to do so to this day. Agriculture is hard work- much harder than hunting and gathering.

Civilization is the only thing that can save mankind? How? We survived for 100,000 or so years without it. We can survive just fine without it.

It is about numbers, but we, as humans have the ability to recognize that we are massively overpopulated. People resisted agriculture, and thus rise of technology, for many years, and in some places continue to do so to this day. Agriculture is hard work- much harder than hunting and gathering.

Civilization is the only thing that can save mankind? How? We survived for 100,000 or so years without it. We can survive just fine without it.

They might have resisted, but the end result was universally the same: they lost. Agriculture and settled civilization came along, and it was better at what it did than the hunter-gathering cultures, with the result being that they were displaced, assimilated, or destroyed.

Even if mankind were to revert to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, it is highly unlikely that that condition would even remotely have a chance of lasting that way. Cultures would rediscover the things they lost, and they would eventually reestablish civilization, and the process would begin again.

They might have resisted, but the end result was universally the same: they lost. Agriculture and settled civilization came along, and it was better at what it did than the hunter-gathering cultures, with the result being that they were displaced, assimilated, or destroyed.

Even if mankind were to revert to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, it is highly unlikely that that condition would even remotely have a chance of lasting that way. Cultures would rediscover the things they lost, and they would eventually reestablish civilization, and the process would begin again.

If it did, it would only fall again.

If it did, it would only fall again.

Yes, but the point is the same: there is no stopping it. The only realistic path is to try to steer civilization in the right direction rather than try to reverse it. Otherwise, you're going to pay for the same mistakes in pain, suffering, and environmental devastation.

I read that first paragraph and came to the same idea about artificial being a sub-category of natural that you mentioned in the next paragraph. It was slightly creepy, but it's nice that someone else appears to have the same train of thought as me. :)

I think a lot of the disagreements in this thread are coming out of people having different ideas of the definition of natural and artificial. The general belief seems to be that natural and artificial are opposing categories, but really the point at which something goes from being natural to being artificial seems to be quite blurry. You could say that "artificial" is something that is constructed out of components that aren't readily available in nature, so that a chimp using a twig cut to a particular length to reach insects in a tree is natural, whereas a human using a rifle to hunt deer is artificial. The difference might seem obvious to some, but where exactly is the line? Using a gun could be considered to be an unfair advantage over the deer, as the deer has not had a chance to evolve attributes that allow it to avoid being shot, and it cannot create a tool to help it do so. The insects equally have not evolved to avoid the particular length of twig that the chimp uses, nor can they create a tool to avoid being caught by it.

The attribute humans and chimps have in common that makes the difference here is their intelligence, so perhaps this could be considered a defining point in what is artificial and what is not. I don't think many people would consider a chimp using a twig unnatural, however. Maybe it's because to us guns seem complicated enough to be artificial, whereas the use of twigs is too simple? But then maybe to chimps the use of twigs cut to particular lengths isn't obvious, and is seen as highly creative. This seems to suggest to me that because intelligence is relative, so is the level of artificiality.

In evolution every species does whatever it can to ensure the survival of itself - part of this comes naturally, while other parts may come from conscious thought. Sometimes certain attributes may evolve that give a species a significant advantage, sometimes the advantage is so great that the species reproduces too much and its population can't get enough food, reduces in number and may even die out, causing other species in the eco-system to die out too as a result. The way human civilization has developed now could be considered something like this on a huge scale - we evolved an attribute (our intelligence) that gave us so much of an advantage that the eco-system we are a part of is beginning to collapse. Unfortunately, it's happening in such a way that almost all, if not all, life on Earth is affected by it, and it appears a mass extinction has already begun. This is being directly caused by things including the pollution from the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and the over-hunting of species, which can all be considered artificial. Maybe a definition of "artificial" could be "natural, but much bigger".

I have a feeling I pretty much reiterated what I said in my last post.

I think the difference is that with awareness comes choice. That's what sets apart an artificial phenomenon form a natural one. Then again we can always argue how little we know about climate or our impact in this world, or how natural it is for people to continue polluting the environment because many individual really don't know/don't care about the real impact of what happens when they throw away their trash everyday. I guess there are not that much difference between us and other animals after all.

That applies to many kinds of things. This post is about the fallacy of "appeals to nature" and how poor reasoning it is, whether the "point" being defended is a physical or ethical one....

In my experience, the 'natural' thing usually occurs pretty mucha s follows:

A) You're not allowed to do x

B) Why?

A) It's 'not natural'.

B) ...not natural? But it exists in nature... how is it un-natural.


'Un-natural' is the real culprit, methinks.

So we're going to completely discount Natural Law in ethics?

So we're going to completely discount Natural Law in ethics?

The only ethic I see in nature is "eat or be eaten."

Naturally, I could be wrong.

Yes, but the point is the same: there is no stopping it. The only realistic path is to try to steer civilization in the right direction rather than try to reverse it. Otherwise, you're going to pay for the same mistakes in pain, suffering, and environmental devastation.

Or, you can smash it as thoroughly as possible, and create folklore and mythology against technology, unknown, and the ruins of civilization. Something along those lines might work to stop civilization.

Yes it is!

"It's natural" is, however, a great counter to the "It's wrong and unnatural!" arguement so often used by homophobes.

Well said! Well said! I completely agree. There is nothing natural about skyscrapers, B-52s, or tvs, etc. 'Simple' tools, such as clothing, spears, etc are. They can be maintained using readily available materials- with little to no effect on the environment.
It's unnatural for us to use out intelligence and toolmaking abilities? So, is it unnatural for cheetahs to run really fast? Or for plants to carry out photosynthesis?

It's unnatural for us to use out intelligence and toolmaking abilities? So, is it unnatural for cheetahs to run really fast? Or for plants to carry out photosynthesis?

We can make tools, and did with little change for thousands upon thousands of years. Was it because our ancestors couldn't make anything better? No. Their system worked, and worked well.

Mental fire-brand Jesus freak: Homosexuality is un-natural, it doesn't occur in nature; Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!

Sane person: Actually it is natural, my dog is gay.

Mental fire-brand Jesus freak: Just because its natural doesn't mean its right! Cannibalism is natural but that doesn't mean i want to go round eating people!

The Homophobes allways have an answer, thats mainly because they're not basing their hatred of Gays on anything rational, its just based on pure intollerance. When they try to rationalise homophobia it doesn't work.

I think the OP is right on the money in the sense that justification of an activity because it's "natural" is a weak premise at best. As was stated, either EVERYTHING is natural, in which case the term loses all meaning, or any activity performed by an entity other than humans is natural but is harly a valid premise since all sort of activity can be justified on that basis.

A few years ago I overheard a debate in which one person was defending smoking pot on the basis that it's "natural," as if the act of harvesting the plant, drying it, and rolling it into a piece of industrially-manufactured paper were an extensino of that naturalness...

Or a debate last year on here in which people were defending homosexual behavior on the basis of it being "natural" but not extending that same logic to incest, murder etc.

I would suggest, for clarity, that the definition of "natural" be along the lines of non-human activity since that's how it's most often used. A beaver building a dam is considered perfectly natural. Humans building a dam is considered an ecological disaster.

That applies to many kinds of things. This post is about the fallacy of "appeals to nature" and how poor reasoning it is, whether the "point" being defended is a physical or ethical one...

First off, we start with what it even means for something to be "natural"; that it exists "in nature"; already, it could be considered arbitrary since humans are part of nature, and as such, so is what we do. It's not like we came from nowhere; we evolved from other animals, (nature) took naturally existing materials (nature) and rearragned them as tools using natural parts of our bodies including our hands and brains, and used those tools to develop more complex tools; so in a way, modern technology is, ironically, part of the course of nature. In a way it's the course of nature that I say this. But let's say we try to give natural a meaning and say it means what exists in the "natural" world EXCEPT for humans. If this is the case, to use "natural" as a positive term is to imply that everything else is better than humans. That sounds rather misanthropic, which makes it seem bizarre for it to be popular among humans. (Well, assuming it is; it somewhat seems to be)

Some say that "nature" gave us everything we needed to survive, but this is a myth. Hospitals use technology to save lives. One could say that things like heart disease and cancer could be attributed to technology decreasing exercise and increasing pollution... well, they do contribute to it, but I doubt the lack of technology would completely eliminate them... but even then, what about AIDS? Of course, some don't stop there. I've talked to some religious person on YouTube who claims that AIDS is a man-made disease, which to me sounds like a conspiracy theory. To be fair, perhaps it might be valid, I'm not sure, but whether it is or not, there is still one disease that completely disproves the myth that nature gave us everything we needed; type 1 diabetes. For millions of human beings, including myself, our bodies don't naturally produce insulin, the hormone which allows our cells to use the chemical energy in our bloodstream, and is therefore needed for survival. Imagine that, all of the complexity of the human body, and one missing hormone would've brought the whole thing down if technology didn't intervene; injecting insulin might not sound like technology, but it applies science, and by high school technology course definitions therefore counts as technology. Nature didn't give me everything I needed to survive, I needed technology.

And yet, despite medical technology, people seem to be inclined to distrust the "artificial" and think "natural" somehow means better. As I mentioned in the aspartame thread, some people act like something being "more natural" means that it's somehow better for you. With that kind of reasoning one could say, if bitten by a rattlesnake, don't go to a hospital (not sure if that's what's done for it, but whatever) but just let the all-natural rattlesnake venom do whatever it oh-so-naturally does. It's ridiculous.

Some even suggest that homosexuality is immoral just because it's not natural. Well I do think that's a questionable assumption actually but even assuming that, to suggest that something NOT being natural makes it LESS moral is if anything going in the wrong direction. Nature is all about survival of the fittest, the strong attacking the weak, I somehow doubt that justice is "natural". Sharks are known to eat their own young, so in that case cannibalism is "natural". Monkeys don't have restrictions about the ages of those involved in sexual activity like we humans do, so in that case paedophilia is "natural". So for cannibalism and paedophilia being natural, homosexuality not being natural is probably if anything a point in its favour. People even defend marijuana with this, saying things like "isn't making nature against the law a bit paranoid?" and while I'm in favour of legalizing it (for different reasons, obviously) I think that according to THAT kind of "reasoning" having cannibalism and paedophilia be illegal is "paranoid"...

So basically, "natural" is a word with a questionable level of meaning, contradictory in its popularity among humans, connected to misconceptions, and used to defend or attack all sorts of random different things in illogical ways. Of course, I like how it breaks the ideology labels by having the same thing that's used against homosexuality being used in favour of marijuana, when both are considered "left-wing" things to defend. But overall, I think the fallacy of appeals to nature really needs to be slammed down on for the idiotic BS it is.


By extension, then, "it's unnatural" is also not a legitimate argument.

We can make tools, and did with little change for thousands upon thousands of years. Was it because our ancestors couldn't make anything better? No. Their system worked, and worked well.

Which has no bearing on how well other systems work, nor does it address why using our natural intellignce becomes unnatural at some arbitrary point.

Which has no bearing on how well other systems work, nor does it address why using our natural intellignce becomes unnatural at some arbitrary point.

The point wasn't arbitrary. It was stated earlier. Anything that undomesticated (natural [lols], free, uncivilized) can create and maintain.

Or a debate last year on here in which people were defending homosexual behavior on the basis of it being "natural" but not extending that same logic to incest, murder etc.


Yeah, whether something is supposedly natural or not doesn't really have much of an impact on the morality of an issue. Personally, with the issues in that debate you mentioned, I would say that the difference is homosexuality doesn't harm anyone whereas murder does. Incest could be considered a bit of a grey area, as it can cause a higher likelihood of genetic diseases occurring in the offspring. Which goes to show that some people do seem to use the words "natural" and "good" (as well as "unnatural" and "bad") interchangeably.

The point wasn't arbitrary. It was stated earlier. Anything that undomesticated (natural [lols], free, uncivilized) can create and maintain.

Don't birds have to learn how to fly? And don't the young of most predators need to learn how to hunt? Why is that any different from learning how to make computers? Unless you're suggesting that birds flying and predators hunting is unnatural.

Oh, and:
undomesticated

adjective

In a primitive state; not domesticated or cultivated; produced by nature:

Since humans are a part of nature, then we are all undomesticated, at least by this definition.

Don't birds have to learn how to fly? And don't the young of most predators need to learn how to hunt? Why is that any different from learning how to make computers? Unless you're suggesting that birds flying and predators hunting is unnatural.

Oh, and:


Since humans are a part of nature, then we are all undomesticated, at least by this definition.

Humans are a part of nature, but civilization is not. It is an aberration in our species' history. One that should be corrected in the next 100 or so years (hopefully much sooner, though). Machines are an aberration. They are inorganic an unnatural.

I don't agree with your metaphors. Humans learned everything (basically) we needed to know long ago. How to hunt, gather, construct boats, clothes, tools (spears and things). Our infancy was learning how to create these tools (so basically previous hominids...)

Well I don't know, I guess it all depends on what you are arguing huh?

Humans are a part of nature, but civilization is not.
Civilisation is a human construct. By that reasonins, beavers' dams, birds' nests and many many other animal made dwellings are not part of nature. Will you be going out and destroying birts nests and filling in burrows?
It is an aberration in our species' history. One that should be corrected in the next 100 or so years (hopefully much sooner, though). Machines are an aberration.
This seems to be a matter of opinion rather than fact.
They are inorganic an unnatural.
So are stone tools.

I don't agree with your metaphors. Humans learned everything (basically) we needed to know long ago.

So? Our intelligence allows us to learn far more than what we need to know to survive, and once we know what we need to to survive, then it's to be expected that we begin to learn what we want to know. And if you don't think our ancestors wanted to know all the things that have led us to this point in human history, then you'll willfully ignoring reality.

Since humans are a part of nature, then we are all undomesticated, at least by this definition.

of course, your argument also means that dogs are undomesticated, which is clearly false.

CiviliZation is a human construct. By that reasonins, beavers' dams, birds' nests and many many other animal made dwellings are not part of nature. Will you be going out and destroying birts nests and filling in burrows?

Spelled with a z, not an s. I don't see how you came to those conclusions. Civilization is to humans what birds nests are to birds? How'd you get that? You could say that bands are to humans what nests are to birds, but civilization-no.

This seems to be a matter of opinion rather than fact.
Possibly, but it makes sense when you look at history.
So are stone tools.
Already discussed.

So? Our intelligence allows us to learn far more than what we need to know to survive, and once we know what we need to to survive, then it's to be expected that we begin to learn what we want to know. And if you don't think our ancestors wanted to know all the things that have led us to this point in human history, then you'll willfully ignoring reality.

Aye, people want to learn. It was possible to keep people occupied for 100,000+ years without letting their knowledge destroy the planet. It should be possible to do so again.

Another good point! Civilization caused many of the diseases and illnesses it is only now beginning to treat. Civilization caused humans to become smaller, weaker, frail, and led to large scale warfare, authoritarian regimes, oppression, gender inequality (there were gender differences before-but each sex was appreciated-and women were the freest they've ever been in pre-civilization societies [ie: hunter gatherer societies]), etc.
Isn't the "natural" way "female is nurture, male is protection/hunt"? Granted society adopted that for a while but that was chronologically closer to before civilization was established and it has since moved away from that to a more civilized "you are who you are not based on your gender but based on who you are as an individual" approach; if anything, technology helped tear down the labels of simplistic nurture/protection/hunt classification anyway...

As for authoritarian regimes, I find that if anything authoritiarian regimes tend to have a "what's natural" approach; Hitler had a "female is nurture, male is hunt" approach with regards to his domestic policy (women were in homes to raise more children for a bigger army, men were brought into the army to hunt foreign lands) and his foreign policy reflected a "survival of the fittest" approach. (Countries weak enough to be defeated were considered to have deserved to have been, sort of the same approach as with the natural order of "eat or be eaten")

See, as others have said, the best approach is to just try to steer civilization in the right direction. Civilization has a lot of potential for harm, but also a lot of potential for benefit, and human civilization is something very unique among the animals; unique enough that it should be preserved.

Isn't the "natural" way "female is nurture, male is protection/hunt"?

no

CiviliZation is a human construct. By that reasonins, beavers' dams, birds' nests and many many other animal made dwellings are not part of nature. Will you be going out and destroying birts nests and filling in burrows?

Spelled with a z, not an s. I don't see how you came to those conclusions. Civilization is to humans what birds nests are to birds? How'd you get that? You could say that bands are to humans what nests are to birds, but civilization-no.

This seems to be a matter of opinion rather than fact.
Possibly, but it makes sense when you look at history.
So are stone tools.
Already discussed.

So? Our intelligence allows us to learn far more than what we need to know to survive, and once we know what we need to to survive, then it's to be expected that we begin to learn what we want to know. And if you don't think our ancestors wanted to know all the things that have led us to this point in human history, then you'll willfully ignoring reality.

Aye, people want to learn. It was possible to keep people occupied for 100,000+ years without letting their knowledge destroy the planet. It should be possible to do so again.

Civilisation, is spelt with an S in this part of the world. Sorry I don't get you, when have we actualy destroyed the planet.

When we talk about what is natural and what is not, can anybody actulay name me an unatural thing?

Spelled with a z, not an s.
Only in Americanised English.
I don't see how you came to those conclusions. Civilization is to humans what birds nests are to birds? How'd you get that? You could say that bands are to humans what nests are to birds, but civilization-no.
Civilisation is something we've made for ourselves. Just like how birds make nests for themselves.

Possibly, but it makes sense when you look at history.
I don't see how, but I'm not big on history.
Already discussed.
Ah yes, certain types of inorganic and unnatural things are allowed, but not others.

Aye, people want to learn.
So why stop them?

of course, your argument also means that dogs are undomesticated, which is clearly false.

Unless, of course, he means that modern society is a natural way in which humans interact with their environment, while domesticated animals are taken out of natural interaction with their environment and under human provision.

Which is far, far less clearly false.

Americanized. ;)

Birds need their nests to lay their eggs. Civilization isn't needed.

@Peep: The planet is being destroyed every day. Pollution, habitat destruction, over-hunting, over-fishing, soil erosion, water salinization, etc.

Americanized. ;)
:rolleyes: :p

Birds need their nests to lay their eggs. Civilization isn't needed.
Civilisations is wanted, and has been obtained.

@Peep: The planet is being destroyed every day. Pollution, habitat destruction, over-hunting, over-fishing, soil erosion, water salinization, etc.

Which harm the planet, but won't necessarily destroy it or make it uninhabitable.

And soil erosion would happen with or without civilisation.

Unless, of course, he means that modern society is a natural way in which humans interact with their environment, while domesticated animals are taken out of natural interaction with their environment and under human provision.

Which is far, far less clearly false.

true, but that position would require some argument, as on the face of it these skyscrapers and tvs certainly do not look like our wild-type's way of life. no more than fluffy's resembles that of a wolf's.

Isn't the "natural" way "female is nurture, male is protection/hunt"? Granted society adopted that for a while but that was chronologically closer to before civilization was established and it has since moved away from that to a more civilized "you are who you are not based on your gender but based on who you are as an individual" approach; if anything, technology helped tear down the labels of simplistic nurture/protection/hunt classification anyway...

As for authoritarian regimes, I find that if anything authoritiarian regimes tend to have a "what's natural" approach; Hitler had a "female is nurture, male is hunt" approach with regards to his domestic policy (women were in homes to raise more children for a bigger army, men were brought into the army to hunt foreign lands) and his foreign policy reflected a "survival of the fittest" approach. (Countries weak enough to be defeated were considered to have deserved to have been, sort of the same approach as with the natural order of "eat or be eaten")

See, as others have said, the best approach is to just try to steer civilization in the right direction. Civilization has a lot of potential for harm, but also a lot of potential for benefit, and human civilization is something very unique among the animals; unique enough that it should be preserved.
That's true. In fact, Hitler, Himmler, Darré and on some level, other high up nazis were strict vegetarians, had firmly held beliefs in homeopathic medicin, experimental (at the time) organic farms, renewable energy ("water, winds and tides" -Hitler) and other forms of neo-pagan eco- (nature) mysticism. Hitler was staunchly opposed to all forms of vivisection (animal testing) and cruelty to animals. (irony)


"When people attempt to rebel against the iron logic of nature, they come into conflict with the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human beings. Their actions against nature must lead to their own downfall." -"Hitler, Mein Kampf"

The National Socialist "religion of nature," as one historian has described it, was a volatile admixture of primeval teutonic nature mysticism, pseudo-scientific ecology, irrationalist anti-humanism, and a mythology of racial salvation through a return to the land. Its predominant themes were 'natural order,' organicist holism and denigration of humanity: "Throughout the writings, not only of Hitler, but of most Nazi ideologues, one can discern a fundamental deprecation of humans vis-à-vis nature, and, as a logical corollary to this, an attack upon human efforts to master nature." -"National Socialism and the Religion of Nature"

Quoting a Nazi educator, the same source continues: "anthropocentric views in general had to be rejected. They would be valid only 'if it is assumed that nature has been created only for man. We decisively reject this attitude. According to our conception of nature, man is a link in the living chain of nature just as any other organism'." -"Nazi Culture"

---

And when you really take the time to look, you see the same exact type of reactionary attitudes, ideologies and eco- mysticism from the opposite side of things, the authoritarian extremist left.

--

Couldn't agree more with the rest of your post.


no
Explanation, reason, Proof, an argument of any kind?!

Civilisations is wanted, and has been obtained.



Which harm the planet, but won't necessarily destroy it or make it uninhabitable.

And soil erosion would happen with or without civilisation.

Soil erosion has been greatly accelerated due to mining, deforestation, and agriculture.

Civilization will be lost, hopefully within my lifetime.

Americanized. ;)

Birds need their nests to lay their eggs. Civilization isn't needed.

@Peep: The planet is being destroyed every day. Pollution, habitat destruction, over-hunting, over-fishing, soil erosion, water salinization, etc.

Well I guess the planet is slowley being erroede, but destroyed? Naa we can't do that we have not got the technology.

Birds and nests, well a bird lives in a nest like humans live in civilisations.

OP:I agree that a lot of times when people use "it's natural" (or it's not natural") as moral arguments it is not a valid argument but that's probly more to do with arguments without any sort of evidence are stupid not necessarily appeals to nature. But the snake poison thing is most definitely some sort of logical fallacy. People use aspartame as a replacement for sugar. So fair comparison. But what are you going to compare to letting a snake bite you? Swallowing a cyanide pill? Also, the human race as a whole has everything it needs to survive given by nature but not you because diabetics would probly all die in a state of nature i.e. without technology


The thing is, you can't stop the development of civilization or technology, because they do exactly what evolution wants us to do; it makes us better able to increase our population, disseminate our genes, and adapt us to different environments. Even if civilization vanishes today, it would just arise again in a fairly short amount of time because of the sheer competitive advantage it offers. Humans don't adapt to different environments cos the ones that aren't adapted don't get killed off cos the technology helps them survive.

Civilization really is the only thing that can save mankind from itself. Perhaps but a considerable portion of the things it needs saving from are caused by civilisation. Civilisation: cause of - and solution to - all of life's problems.
It was a lot less likely, though; many, many more people died young relative to the number who made it to old age. The extreme end of longevity has increased considerably over the past century, along with reductions in infant and child mortality. True but prior to that life expectancy was generally worse than it was it hunter-gathering times. Check out the wiki article where it says life expectancy dropped from 33 in Palaeolithic times to 18 in the Bronze Age. Also, whereas ancient Greece and Rome may have had life expectancies as low as 18 and 21 as stated above but Native Americans did have 25 - 35.
Isn't the "natural" way "female is nurture, male is protection/hunt"? Granted society adopted that for a while but that was chronologically closer to before civilization was established and it has since moved away from that to a more civilized "you are who you are not based on your gender but based on who you are as an individual" approach; if anything, technology helped tear down the labels of simplistic nurture/protection/hunt classification anyway...
Only very recently. Say, since the 50's or 60's. Before that, there were many gender inequalities in civilisation. Before civilisation, there were gender differences for sure but nothing like women being disallowed to vote or own property when men would.

As for authoritarian regimes, I find that if anything authoritiarian regimes tend to have a "what's natural" approach; Hitler had a "female is nurture, male is hunt" approach with regards to his domestic policy (women were in homes to raise more children for a bigger army, men were brought into the army to hunt foreign lands) and his foreign policy reflected a "survival of the fittest" approach. (Countries weak enough to be defeated were considered to have deserved to have been, sort of the same approach as with the natural order of "eat or be eaten")maybe so that Hitler was like that but that doesn't mean every "what's natural" approach is authoritarian or that all authoritarian regimes have the "what's natural" approach.