NationStates Jolt Archive

When a species dies, by wathever reason, it's their own fault. If they were good enough they would have adapted to their current situation. So a species that gets completely destroyed is stupid and deserves to die.
When there's a cold, animals have to adapt, warm the same, lack of water, hunters (human or animal),...

This will start a discussion......

When a species dies, by wathever reason, it's their own fault. If they were good enough they would have adapted to their current situation. So a species that gets completely destroyed is stupid and deserves to die.
When there's a cold, animals have to adapt, warm the same, lack of water, hunters (human or animal),...

This will start a discussion......

No, when species die, it is most likely because we messed something up.

*alarm goes off*

Battle stations, everybody! There's a Troll class battleship at our 7 o'clock heading right our way.

*speaks into the loudspeaker trying to communicate with the troll*

This is the N.S.G.S. Agerias. Please state your business. We would like to remind you that trolling is illegal in general waters.

(Did anyone get my pun?)

You fail at satire.

No, when species die, it is most likely because we messed something up.

Then why can't we kill cocraoches or musquitos? Are they then superior to us or superior of animals like elephants who can't evade a stupid human hunter?

If u die it's your fault as well.

When a species dies, by wathever reason, it's their own fault.
Not necessarily true
If they were good enough they would have adapted to their current situation. So a species that gets completely destroyed is stupid and deserves to die.
Not necessarily true.
When there's a cold, animals have to adapt, warm the same, lack of water, hunters (human or animal),...
So if I shoot you in the face its your fault you died, because you were too stupid to dodge the bullet.

This will start a discussion......
Only if a thread full of people telling you that you're wrong counts as a discussion.

So if I shoot you in the face its your fault you died, because you were too stupid to dodge the bullet.

No, because I was too stupid to see it coming and take u out or run away or wathever would have made me survive and left me with the best conditions.

So let's start a poll about the age of our OP here.

I guess 12.

Any other takers?

No, because I was too stupid to see it coming and take u out or run away or wathever would have made me survive and left me with the best conditions.
Man, I need to try this defense out in court sometime.
"It's not my fault, your Honour, he was too stupid to stop me!"
So let's start a poll about the age of our OP here.

I guess 12.

Any other takers?

13. It has some vague understanding of natural selection, or at least appears to.

When a species dies, by wathever reason, it's their own fault. If they were good enough they would have adapted to their current situation. So a species that gets completely destroyed is stupid and deserves to die.
When there's a cold, animals have to adapt, warm the same, lack of water, hunters (human or animal),...

This will start a discussion......

Query:
Suppose humans do something silly, like e.g. destroying a species natural habitat or hunting it to extinction because some people believe its organs make a good aphrodisiac.
A few years later we discover the animal had some extra niche jobs we did not know of at the time, but that are somewhat essential to maintain the local ecosystem. What then ?

Yes, this has happened. Quite a few times in fact.

When there's a cold, animals have to adapt, warm the same, lack of water, hunters (human or animal),...
...when there's a flaming great lump of rock and metal flying at them from the sky...

When a species dies, by wathever reason, it's their own fault. If they were good enough they would have adapted to their current situation. So a species that gets completely destroyed is stupid and deserves to die.
When there's a cold, animals have to adapt, warm the same, lack of water, hunters (human or animal),...

This will start a discussion......

Yep. Cause the one animal that will be very unlikely to adapt to changing environments are humans.

Nature will survive anything you throw at it, comets, vulcanoes, ice ages, you name it. Species will die out, others will evolve to fill the new niches.
Humans, however, might well be among those species that won't make it.

Then why can't we kill cocraoches or musquitos? Are they then superior to us or superior of animals like elephants who can't evade a stupid human hunter?

They just reproduce faster and in much higher numbers (think several million per generation, and a generation span of a few days). So their natural selection happens much much faster than with other animals, which enables them to adapt faster.
So yes, in that sense they are much superior to us.

I agree. Until animal species start developing armour plating and osmotic gills, we can't be held responsible for thier deaths should they come into contact with the bullets from our guns, or the chemical pollutants from our industry.

So let's start a poll about the age of our OP here.

I guess 12.

Any other takers?

13 or 14... I think he has reached puberty, that usually increases testosterone levels in males and makes them both aggressive and slightly dumb.

You've got radiation-resistant animals too... They knew how to adapt.

U can't do anything unnatural, unnatural doesn't exist. An atomb bomb is natural, a gun, a flamethrower,...

Animals ruin other animals terretories too.

Animals ruin other animals terretories too.

True. But we are far better at it.

You've got radiation-resistant animals too... They knew how to adapt.

U can't do anything unnatural, unnatural doesn't exist. An atomb bomb is natural, a gun, a flamethrower,...

Animals ruin other animals terretories too.

As stated alreay, you'll find species adapting to absolutely any environment : radiation, ice, extreme heat, acidic conditions, oxygen or no oxygen...


Humans, on the other hand ...

Then why can't we kill cocraoches or musquitos? Are they then superior to us or superior of animals like elephants who can't evade a stupid human hunter?

They are small, they are extremely plentiful aka they are good at reproducing and they are good at hiding.

Hooray for the disruption of the global food chain! And the massive famines it will bring about in the human population!

So let's start a poll about the age of our OP here.

I guess 12.

Any other takers?

The logic says somewhere between 9 and 11 so I'll go for 10.

What does the winner get? Cookies or tacos?

If u die it's your fault as well.

trolling technique needs work

Nature will survive anything you throw at it, comets, vulcanoes, ice ages, you name it. Species will die out, others will evolve to fill the new niches.
Humans, however, might well be among those species that won't make it.Which is why we should really get off this planet and infest a few others; we shouldn't put all our eggheads in one basket.

Hooray for the disruption of the global food chain! And the massive famines it will bring about in the human population!

So.... then it's our fault again when we die, isn't it?

As stated alreay, you'll find species adapting to absolutely any environment : radiation, ice, extreme heat, acidic conditions, oxygen or no oxygen...


Humans, on the other hand ...Humans tend to adapt the environment, rather than adopt to it. Well, it worked so far.

Which is why we should really get off this planet and infest a few others; we shouldn't put all our eggheads in one basket.

Two planets meet in space.
One says to the other : "You don't look so good, are you feeling ok?"
Says the other : "Oh, I caught homo sapiens"
Says the first : "Ah, don't worry, that'll be over soon"

Humans tend to adapt the environment, rather than adopt to it. Well, it worked so far.

To some extend. Note that we haven't exactly populated the more extreme places on the planet yet ;)

So.... then it's our fault again when we die, isn't it?

Does that matter once we're dead?

Two planets meet in space.
One says to the other : "You don't look so good, are you feeling ok?"
Says the other : "Oh, I caught homo sapiens"
Says the first : "Ah, don't worry, that'll be over soon"hehe
That calls up an image of global warming as a planetary fever :p
Can't be too long anymore then.

So.... then it's our fault again when we die, isn't it?

Its sort-of a twisted irony, is it not? By following your logic, it is the animals fault when their species gets wiped out, not ours. Yet when that same species is wiped out by something related to humans(pollution, hunting, war, what-have-you), it is still their fault.

However, when aforementioned species is key on the global food chain, thus starting a chain reaction which leads to mass starvation amongst humans, then it is our fault.

So, in essence, what your saying is that it is our fault that the species got wiped out.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

As stated alreay, you'll find species adapting to absolutely any environment : radiation, ice, extreme heat, acidic conditions, oxygen or no oxygen...

Humans, on the other hand ...

Tis not as if every species can adapt to radiation, ice, extreme heat, acidic conditions, oxygen... most don't, even those who can may not under certain circumstances (really rapid-changing environments) and there is certainly not a single one that can adapt to ALL of those changes. Also bear in mind that humans have colonized every little corner of this Earth (except for them oceans), the way I see it they can adapt pretty well.


When a species dies, by wathever reason, it's their own fault. If they were good enough they would have adapted to their current situation. So a species that gets completely destroyed is stupid and deserves to die.
When there's a cold, animals have to adapt, warm the same, lack of water, hunters (human or animal),...

This will start a discussion......

What you say is a perfect valid point of view. (Of course tis not as if it's a "species own fault" or being "stupid", and there is not such a thing as being "good enough"). Speciation and extinction are constantly taking place, and its not always the fault of humans. The thing is: humans are part of nature, so any changes we make to the environment are perfectly natural. When photosynthesis changed the atmosphere from reducing to oxidizing, most species were wiped out, and I don't see no greenpeace nutso (note: i totally support greenpeace work) saying anything about that global change or murderous blue green algae. In the same way humans are changing things and destroying certain niches, yet humans won't ever be able to make such a drastic change as photosynthesis did, nor make such a high percentage of the biota go extinct. Species will adapt and survive, a few new niches will be created and life will go on.

Now, the problem I see with this is that biodiversity will definitely drop, and we may be destroying some very valuable resources: out there are very useful genes we are still not aware of (coding for new antibiotics, high tensile strength polymers, cool enzymes for degrading contaminants or making ethanol cheaper, and a long etc) if they go extinct we are losing them. I also think some superior mammals shouldn't be killed for they are highly intelligent, (yet we are making many cetaceans extinct for example). Living things have other intrinsic values but i'm too tired to go on writing.

well, i certainly hope somebody reads this..

Yep. Cause the one animal that will be very unlikely to adapt to changing environments are humans.

Nature will survive anything you throw at it, comets, vulcanoes, ice ages, you name it. Species will die out, others will evolve to fill the new niches.
Humans, however, might well be among those species that won't make it.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/vulcano.jpg






Sorry, couldn't resist.

The logic says somewhere between 9 and 11 so I'll go for 10.

What does the winner get? Cookies or tacos?

Both ;)

U can't do anything unnatural, unnatural doesn't exist. An atomb bomb is natural, a gun, a flamethrower,...

Natural: 2 a: being in accordance with or determined by nature b: having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

10 a: growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow> b: existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <natural turf> <natural curiosities> c: relating to or being natural food



manufacture 2 a: to make from raw materials by hand or by machinery b: to produce according to an organized plan and with division of labor


artificial: 1: humanly contrived often on a natural model : man-made <an artificial limb> <artificial diamonds>


unnatural
One entry found.

unnatural

Main Entry:
un·nat·u·ral Listen to the pronunciation of unnatural
Pronunciation:
\ˌən-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Function:
adjective
Date:
14th century

1: not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events2 a: not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : perverse b: lacking ease and naturalness : contrived <her manner was forced and unnatural> c: inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected <an unnatural alliance>
synonyms see irregular

Back up and try again.

I do not agree with these definitions. Everything is natural, made of natural components, I can't make something out of some material that doesn't exist.
If something exists, it is natural.

rule 37 of the internet - arguing with a troll means the troll wins.
rule 1 of the internet - no internet memes to be used outside /b/oards.

Paradox.

I do not agree with these definitions. Everything is natural, made of natural components, I can't make something out of some material that doesn't exist.
If something exists, it is natural.

There is this construct of reality on planet Earth called "a dictionary".
Look them up.

There is this construct of reality on planet Earth called “a dictionary”.
Look them up.
Perhaps a little unfair Kat; I think you two are sorta missing each other with two slightly different definitions of ‘natural’.

I agree with B en H that everything around us is ‘natural’, in the sense that it is part of the natural world. This includes artificial constructs made by humans, such as guns, houses, etc. They’re still ‘in’ nature.

However, I also agree with you that something can be ‘unnatural’, in the sense that is contrary to the way nature has ‘set it up’ (oh, for the end to the implicit ‘designer’ creed in English language...).

So a donkey wearing shoes can rightly be called ‘unnatural’, as donkeys don’t ‘naturally’ wear shoes, though both the donkey and the shoes are still ‘in’ nature. Ahh, category errors: the lifeblood of the philosopher.

I miss the Dodo bird. :(

13. It has some vague understanding of natural selection, or at least appears to.

11 going on 12.

Chumbly, a gun is not natural. You cannot breed guns. You cannot pick them off trees. You cannot mine them. They do not flock to Capistrano every September.

You can mine the ores, and smelt them into metals. You can pour the metal into molds. You can cut the wood that makes the stocks. You can screw them together. This is manufacture, or the creation of a tool. It is not a natural creation, any more than flint-knapped arrowheads are natural, or Sherman tanks are. They require intervention and redesigning by man at every step of the process, and did not exist before man manipulated tools and design to create them.

When a species dies, by wathever reason, it's their own fault. If they were good enough they would have adapted to their current situation. So a species that gets completely destroyed is stupid and deserves to die.
When there's a cold, animals have to adapt, warm the same, lack of water, hunters (human or animal),...

This will start a discussion......Exterminating species is nothing to be proud of, so please stop making excuses for it.

Chumbly, a gun is not natural. You cannot breed guns. You cannot pick them off trees. You cannot mine them. They do not flock to Capistrano every September.
Obviously, but a gun is still very much a part of the ‘natural world’, i.e., it is a material thing that is a part of the universe.

Unless your arguing a gun (or any artificial creation, for that matter) is a supernatural entity, which I very much doubt you are.

It is not a natural creation, any more than flint-knapped arrowheads are natural, or Sherman tanks are.Great, now I'm stuck with the image of a thundering herd of Sherman tanks rolling through the Great Plains with a pack of Tiger tanks lurking in the tall grass... :p

Great, now I'm stuck with the image of a thundering herd of Sherman tanks rolling through the Great Plains with a pack of Tiger tanks lurking in the tall grass... :p

Precisely. The ludicrous mental image you are fighting is courtesy of what we all know -- they do not occur in nature, and are therefore unnatural.

Obviously, but a gun is still very much a part of the ‘natural world’, i.e., it is a material thing that is a part of the universe.

Unless your arguing a gun (or any artificial creation, for that matter) is a supernatural entity, which I very much doubt you are.

It is supernatural only in the extremely tangential meaning and limited meaning of the word that says it is "above" or "beyond" what is found in nature -- but no, guns are not magical, nor are they divine.

Precisely. The ludicrous mental image you are fighting is courtesy of what we all know — they do not occur in nature, and are therefore unnatural.
Only to one, limited, conception of what constitutes ‘natural’.

Your correct if by ‘natural’ you mean ‘occurring in nature without an intelligence behind it’, and indeed we often use that definition. But that’s fairly limited. By that conception, those born through artificial insemination are not ‘natural’. The tools that chimps make to get at termites are not ‘natural’. Hell, I can’t see a single thing around me in my room that is ‘natural’ by that definition; even the plants in my rooms are modified strains, and thus not ‘natural’.

But we also mean by ‘natural’ ‘of the physical world’, i.e., not supernatural. And I can assure you that the keyboard I am typing on is no supernatural entity.

It seems very strange, IMO, to describe the things we and other minds make as unnatural.

Only to one, limited, conception of what constitutes ‘natural’.

...

But we also mean by ‘natural’ ‘of the physical world’, i.e., not supernatural. And I can assure you that the keyboard I am typing on is no supernatural entity.Here's the thing, though: When we talk about "bows", we're not talking about both the fronts of ships and bending over. "Natural" in this case is a homonym that can be used as a differentiation between "man-made" and "occuring in nature" as well as between "supernatural" and "physical". You're arguing that we should use both at the same time, which makes no sense.

You’re arguing that we should use both at the same time, which makes no sense.
No, I’m arguing that we should be very careful about which definition we are using and which one should be used in specific circumstances.

Especially in light of the recent trend for ‘unnatural’ to be used as a shorthand for ‘bad’.

Natural“ in this case is a homonym that can be used as a differentiation between ”man-made"...
Not just ‘man-made’, but ‘of the material universe’.

By that conception, those born through artificial insemination are not ‘natural’.
Correct. Their conception was brought about by unnatural means -- that is, technological/scientific intervention. This does not, as you suggest, mean bad. It means that petrie dishes, pipettes, syringes et cetera are not normally found in the conception of a living creature. Neither are clones natural. So?

The tools that chimps make to get at termites are not ‘natural’. Indeed not. They have manipulated raw materials (which are natural) to create tools (which are not).

Hell, I can’t see a single thing around me in my room that is ‘natural’ by that definition; even the plants in my rooms are modified strains, and thus not ‘natural’.
Mankind does so prefer to surround himself with things he's tinkered with.

But we also mean by ‘natural’ ‘of the physical world’, i.e., not supernatural. And I can assure you that the keyboard I am typing on is no supernatural entity.
You are the only person who seems bent on equating "unnatural" with magical or divine. Why keep repeating it? As a strawman?

It seems very strange, IMO, to describe the things we and other minds make as unnatural.
It seems stranger to think of that poor herd of Sherman tanks grazing peacefully, unaware that they are about to be hunted by a pride of King Tiger tanks.

Correct. Their conception was brought about by unnatural means — that is, technological/scientific intervention. This does not, as you suggest, mean bad. It means that petrie dishes, pipettes, syringes et cetera are not normally found in the conception of a living creature.
I personally don’t think it means ‘bad’, but you must have heard the (poor) argument, “Oh, but X is unnatural” as a reason why we shouldn’t do X. It often crops up in discussions of homosexuality or other non-dominant ‘lifestyles’. Vegetarianism is another one that’s often labelled, always pejoratively, as ‘unnatural’.

You are the only person who seems bent on equating “unnatural” with magical or divine. I quite specifically pointed out that that is not my definition — why keep repeating it? As a strawman?
No, as an example that ‘natural’ doesn’t always mean ‘non-artificial’.

We can identify two definitions of ‘natural’ by comparisons: ‘natural vs. artificial’ and ‘natural vs. supernatural’. B en H was obviously using the latter definition, while you were using the former. Labelling his definition as ‘wrong’, which you seemed to be doing with the “go look up a dictionary” comment, is incorrect.

He’s not wrong, he’s just using a different definition to you; one that is just as valid. All I’m doing is highlighting how the two definitions differ, in an attempt to move the discussion along.

This does not seem to be working. :p

One of, if not the first duty's god gave us is to be masters over the animals. We can't let them become over-populated or under-populated, we especially can't let them go extict.

Christians shouldn't make fun of "tree huggers". There doing there god giving duty. If you litter, and never try to help the enviroment, you not a learned Christian.

One of, if not the first duty’s god gave us is to be masters over the animals. We can’t let them become over-populated or under-populated, we especially can’t let them go extict.
Along with mind-body Dualism, the notion of the hierarchy of animals and the concept of a distinction between humans and animals is one of the worst hangovers from Christian theology infecting popular thought today.

I don't think you'd want to live in a world where humans were faced with equal competitors in the rest of the natural world. Let's just say it would be a lot less comfortable than the life you're living now. In fact, you'd probably suffer some kind of horrible, early death at the hands of other predators, so it's definitely worse than anything you're living now.

We preserve the environment because it's the smart thing to do.

I personally don’t think it means ‘bad’, but you must have heard the (poor) argument, “Oh, but X is unnatural” as a reason why we shouldn’t do X. It often crops up in discussions of homosexuality or other non-dominant ‘lifestyles’. Vegetarianism is another one that’s often labelled, always pejoratively, as ‘unnatural’.
Except that homosexuality is a poor example as it is, in fact, natural. It occurs in the human populace and in other animal populations as well. Ergo, it is natural.

I don't understand how vegetarianism is viewed as unnatural either. There are plenty of omnivorous and herbivorous species. How is it unnatural?

No, as an example that ‘natural’ doesn’t always mean ‘non-artificial’.

We can identify two definitions of ‘natural’ by comparisons: ‘natural vs. artificial’ and ‘natural vs. supernatural’. B en H was obviously using the latter definition, while you were using the former. Labelling his definition as ‘wrong’, which you seemed to be doing with the “go look up a dictionary” comment, is incorrect.

He’s not wrong, he’s just using a different definition to you; one that is just as valid. All I’m doing is highlighting how the two definitions differ, in an attempt to move the discussion along.

This does not seem to be working. :p

B en H was the one, if you recollect, who said he did not accept the definition.

No, because I was too stupid to see it coming and take u out or run away or wathever would have made me survive and left me with the best conditions.

In that case...

:sniper:

But you won't mind then. :rolleyes:

Except that homosexuality is a poor example as it is, in fact, natural. It occurs in the human populace and in other animal populations as well. Ergo, it is natural.

I don’t understand how vegetarianism is viewed as unnatural either. There are plenty of omnivorous and herbivorous species. How is it unnatural?
I view neither as unnatural; not in the sense of artificial, nor in the sense of supernatural. However, that’s a common argument against both homosexuality and vegetarianism.

I’m not agreeing with the argument, I’m merely demonstrating that ‘unnatural’ is often used in a purely pejorative sense.

B en H was the one, if you recollect, who said he did not accept the definition.
He did not accept, quite rightly, that artificial objects are outside of the material universe. Which wasn’t what you were saying at all; you were talking, also quite rightly, about artificial objects being not found generally in nature.

He was thus confusing one definition of ‘natural’ with another.

As were you.

It seems very strange, IMO, to describe the things we and other minds make as unnatural.

i wouldn't make the cutoff be 'created by intelligence'. that seems to give up too much, and makes us not only say all human activities are unnatural, but as you rightly point out, a good portion of non-human activities. better to set the bar a bit higher, i think.

Indeed not. They have manipulated raw materials (which are natural) to create tools (which are not).
Doesn't that make the definition of "natural" a bit to narrow then? If all it takes to render something unnatural is human labor/interference, then almost nothing on Earth can qualify as "natural."
Even the air I'm breathing has been tampered with by humanity (exhaust fumes, perfumes, just fumes in general).

Doesn’t that make the definition of “natural” a bit to narrow then? If all it takes to render something unnatural is human labor/interference, then almost nothing on Earth can qualify as “natural.”
Even the air I’m breathing has been tampered with by humanity (exhaust fumes, perfumes, just fumes in general).
Or indeed thing like termite mounds or beaver dams.

They, too, don’t occur without interference of minds.

Most people view animals and what they reproduce (ant hills, beaverdams,...) as natural. (Wich I think is right)
But people don't always agree on how to see humans and what they reproduce. I see them both as natural. We are made from the building blocks of the universe (all sorts of atoms and chemicals and stuff). We are just some crazy animal.
Then u've got people who see us as plain unnatural or divine or a fault of nature or wathever.


Just thought about this: Didn't nature make us?:confused:

I think most peolpe will agree that we came out of nature, nature made us. And I also think most people will agree when I say that nature doesn't make unnatural things.

Most people view animals and what they reproduce (ant hills, beaverdams,...) as natural. (Wich I think is right)
But people don't always agree on how to see humans and what they reproduce. I see them both as natural. We are made from the building blocks of the universe (all sorts of atoms and chemicals and stuff). We are just some crazy animal.
Then u've got people who see us as plain unnatural or divine or a fault of nature or wathever.


Just thought about this: Didn't nature make us?:confused:No God made us.:p And we then made nature.:confused:

but why should we believe that things made by nature might not move on to making unnatural things?

:confused:

And I also think most people will agree when I say that nature doesn't make unnatural things.

but why should we believe that things made by nature might not move on to making unnatural things?

:confused:

your claim was that nature doesn't make unnatural things. but even if we accept that claim, why should we make the further step to accepting the claim that things made by nature cannot make unnatural things themselves.

When a species dies, by wathever reason, it's their own fault. If they were good enough they would have adapted to their current situation. So a species that gets completely destroyed is stupid and deserves to die.
When there's a cold, animals have to adapt, warm the same, lack of water, hunters (human or animal),...

This will start a discussion......

No. You don't understand natural selection. If we're bombarded with radiation, you can't just develop radiation-proof ability. If all the water dries up, it's not their fault. They cannot possibly adapt.

Exterminating species is nothing to be proud of, so please stop making excuses for it.

http://www.geocities.com/dalektimeline/NewDalek1.jpg

SPEAK FOR YOUR-SELF, HU-MAN!

SPEAK FOR YOUR-SELF, HU-MAN!

I can't help but think of that SomethingAwful article about the life and times of a Dalek slave.

most of the die-offs today are due to habitate loss as a resault of there continuing to be more and more to damd many of US.

the loss of any ONE species, my well be an almost "so what" in the context of nature's cycles of renewal and the over all web of life of which we are an integral part and utterly dependent upon.

it is the large scale loss of species diversity that has alarming implications for that web of life itself.

it is only another proof of human gullibility that there continue to be those who adamantly refuse look at objective evidence of this.

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

I think most peolpe will agree that we came out of nature, nature made us. And I also think most people will agree when I say that nature doesn't make unnatural things.There's no way you've gone through life without seeing a duckbilled platypus.

*alarm goes off*

Battle stations, everybody! There's a Troll class battleship at our 7 o'clock heading right our way.

*speaks into the loudspeaker trying to communicate with the troll*

This is the N.S.G.S. Agerias. Please state your business. We would like to remind you that trolling is illegal in general waters.

(Did anyone get my pun?)
http://www.gearsandwidgets.com/external/wherethisthreadgoing.jpg

People got (or were) immune to the plague: Adaptation? Natural selection?

People got (or were) immune to the plague: Adaptation? Natural selection?

Proof?

I think most peolpe will agree that we came out of nature, nature made us. And I also think most people will agree when I say that nature doesn't make unnatural things.

What's that got to do with anything?
Since when is anything desirable and morally ok just cause it's natural?

People got (or were) immune to the plague: Adaptation? Natural selection?Anti-biotics? Hygiene? People are no more immune to the plague than they were then, we've just found ways to keep us from dying.

People got (or were) immune to the plague: Adaptation? Natural selection?

Some natural selection: the people that had resistance survived, the ones that did not... did not. And nowadays we have nice medicines to combat the plague, as well as better hygiene.

However, us humans have some silly dislike of many of us dying even though the species might survive.

What's that got to do with anything?
Since when is anything desirable and morally ok just cause it's natural?

I'm trying to point out that species die or adapt...

I think most peolpe will agree that we came out of nature, nature made us. And I also think most people will agree when I say that nature doesn't make unnatural things.

I'm trying to point out that species die or adapt...

Try as I might, I can't read that into it, sorry.

I'm trying to point out that species die or adapt...And?

Two planets meet in space.
One says to the other : "You don't look so good, are you feeling ok?"
Says the other : "Oh, I caught homo sapiens"
Says the first : "Ah, don't worry, that'll be over soon"hehe
That calls up an image of global warming as a planetary fever :p
Can't be too long anymore then.

"Just take two asteroids and call me in the morning."

We can't just go around shooting all the dear for example in the hopes that one of them suddenly becomes immune to bullets.Well, the obvious point Ben is making is that it would be the deer's fault for not developing bullet-proof hides, not our fault for shooting them.

Chumbly, a gun is not natural. You cannot breed guns. You cannot pick them off trees. You cannot mine them. They do not flock to Capistrano every September.

You can mine the ores, and smelt them into metals. You can pour the metal into molds. You can cut the wood that makes the stocks. You can screw them together. This is manufacture, or the creation of a tool. It is not a natural creation, any more than flint-knapped arrowheads are natural, or Sherman tanks are. They require intervention and redesigning by man at every step of the process, and did not exist before man manipulated tools and design to create them.
But humans evolved as tool-makers/users, so it is natural for us to make tools, and in that sense the existence of those tools is natural...

You're not the only one. I also find it curious that in those that replied, nobody believed the OP was any older than 14. Curious that.

I'm trying to point out that species die or adapt...

Except that is not how it works at all. Species do not adapt or die. Those of the species that don't die, due to some handy genetic mutation, pass the same mutation unto their ofspring. Those without this mutation to enable them to cope better in an changed enviroment die.

We can't just go around shooting all the dear for example in the hopes that one of them suddenly becomes immune to bullets.

But humans evolved as tool-makers/users, so it is natural for us to make tools, and in that sense the existence of those tools is natural...Their existence, perhaps, but the tools themselves?

Their existence, perhaps, but the tools themselves?

That is the whole "what is nature" debate. Are atoms natural ? If so, the components of the tools are - so why would the sum not be ?
Is a birds nest natural ? It is manafuctured after all.

It seems so.. arrogant... to place things that humans make on a pedestal. Then again, it also seems so odd to not do so.

That is the whole "what is nature" debate. Are atoms natural ? If so, the components of the tools are - so why would the sum not be ?
Is a birds nest natural ? It is manafuctured after all.

It seems so.. arrogant... to place things that humans make on a pedestal. Then again, it also seems so odd to not do so.I wouldn't use the term manufactured for describing a bird's nest. Built, but never manufactured.

Yeah of course. When a Chip makes a nest of natural resources high up the tree, can that nest be said to natural or unnatural?Actually, unnatural, since it doesn't occur in nature on its own, just like beaver dams.

Their existence, perhaps, but the tools themselves?

Yeah of course. When a Chimp makes a nest of natural resources high up the tree, can that nest be said to natural or unnatural?

it does create an interesting question. Some would argue that a bird's nest is natural but a sharpened stick serving as a spear is not. However both are made by the animal's dexterity and mental processes.

I default as a general proposition that "natural" generally covrs thos constructs and constructions that the animal engages in as a matter of instinct and genetics. A bird as far as we know does not think much about the building of the nest, it simply does so driven by its evolutionary pressures to do so.But would bird songs be culture then? Those are not influenced by genetics at all (ignoring potential physical properties required to perform certain sounds).

That is the whole "what is nature" debate. Are atoms natural ? If so, the components of the tools are - so why would the sum not be ?
Is a birds nest natural ? It is manafuctured after all.

It seems so.. arrogant... to place things that humans make on a pedestal. Then again, it also seems so odd to not do so.

it does create an interesting question. Some would argue that a bird's nest is natural but a sharpened stick serving as a spear is not. However both are made by the animal's dexterity and mental processes.

I default as a general proposition that "natural" generally covrs thos constructs and constructions that the animal engages in as a matter of instinct and genetics. A bird as far as we know does not think much about the building of the nest, it simply does so driven by its evolutionary pressures to do so.

it does create an interesting question. Some would argue that a bird's nest is natural but a sharpened stick serving as a spear is not. However both are made by the animal's dexterity and mental processes.

I default as a general proposition that "natural" generally covrs thos constructs and constructions that the animal engages in as a matter of instinct and genetics. A bird as far as we know does not think much about the building of the nest, it simply does so driven by its evolutionary pressures to do so.

So that would boil the qestion down to the brain capacity of the creature that created the tool? I don't see how that is relevant?

So that would boil the qestion down to the brain capacity of the creature that created the tool? I don't see how that is relevant?

Not so much the brain capacity, humans produce plenty of things I'd call "natural" (don't make me say what). I'd say less the capacity of the creature that made the tool, but rather the mental process that went into making the tol.

I really don't know enough about bird song to comment...Some bird species will occasionally "adopt" other birds, for various reasons. It's been shown that the adopted children learn their parent's song, so it's not a genetic trait passed on.

But would bird songs be culture then? Those are not influenced by genetics at all (ignoring potential physical properties required to perform certain sounds).

I really don't know enough about bird song to comment...

Not so much the brain capacity, humans produce plenty of things I'd call "natural" (don't make me say what). I'd say less the capacity of the creature that made the tool, but rather the mental process that went into making the tol.

I still don't see the relevance for determing what is and is not natural. How does it follow that the higher the brain fuction behind the creation of the tool the less natural it is?

Is not high brain function natural to humans?

Can't we just come to the conclusion that unnatural doesn't exist?

We haven't even defined "natural" yet...

Can't we just come to the conclusion that unnatural doesn't exist?

It could under the right conditions (pressure and temperature).

You've no clue what steel is, right?

no, because that' silly. Steel, for example, is most certainly unnatural. It does not exist in nature, and it can not be created by processes existing in nature

Plastic would be an even better example.

Can't we just come to the conclusion that unnatural doesn't exist?

Well it does, I mean you just used the word. But noting we can do can ever be unnatural. Instead consign the word to an expression of disgust. As in the sentance 'a 30 year old having sex with a 5 year old is unnatural'

Can't we just come to the conclusion that unnatural doesn't exist?

no, because that' silly. Steel, for example, is most certainly unnatural. It does not exist in nature, and it can not be created by processes existing in nature

no, because that' silly. Steel, for example, is most certainly unnatural. It does not exist in nature, and it can not be created by processes existing in nature

It could under the right conditions (pressure and temperature).

no, because that' silly. Steel, for example, is most certainly unnatural. It does not exist in nature, and it can not be created by processes existing in nature

Certianly using that defintion we could say that steel is unatural, being that it does not occur naturaly. But it's componants do, and we have naturaly devised a procees for making it.

Can't we just come to the conclusion that unnatural doesn't exist?

Unnatural simply does not exist. There are certainly undesirable traits developed by species, but to claim something is unnatural is to claim it cannot exist within nature.

If something cannot exist within nature, it cannot exist, period. The universe, in all its glory, is nature. Human beings cannot create something which cannot exist within the universe. Any combination we make, any chemicals we brew, are natural. Some of them simply aren't desirable.

Back to the OP. Extinction is a natural event. Sometimes, extinctions are caused because the species simply cannot thrive in its environment, and cannot make the necessary changes in order to thrive in its environment (physical, location, or otherwise). Sometimes species cannot thrive because their survival imperatives have gone awry. Sometimes extinctions are caused by other species (humans or otherwise). Every one of these extinctions is natural. Again, the distinction is made between natural and desirable.

However, what is generally ignored by the rabid environmentalists (as opposed to those who actually do good or have logical things to say), is that extinctions have been occurring...well, since there were species to become extinct. Millions of species over the years have become extinct, for the reasons listed above.

Does that mean it's good species are dying because of human interventions? In some cases, probably so...in other cases, not so much.

The first imperative of any species must be to survive and reproduce. This is why teenagers, once they reach sexual maturity (as opposed to societal maturity) are so eager to have sex. Their survival instincts are telling them very fiercely to reproduce NOW, before something happens which will make this impossible. This is also where the "biological clock" so many women talk about comes from.

The second imperative of any species is to secure its own ecological niche, to ensure its survival. In the case of human being's, this has admittedly run a bit amok, but it is a survival imperative.

Unnatural simply does not exist. There are certainly undesirable traits developed by species, but to claim something is unnatural is to claim it cannot exist within nature.

If something cannot exist within nature, it cannot exist, period. The universe, in all its glory, is nature. Human beings cannot create something which cannot exist within the universe. Any combination we make, any chemicals we brew, are natural. Some of them simply aren't desirable.

Back to the OP. Extinction is a natural event. Sometimes, extinctions are caused because the species simply cannot thrive in its environment, and cannot make the necessary changes in order to thrive in its environment (physical, location, or otherwise). Sometimes species cannot thrive because their survival imperatives have gone awry. Sometimes extinctions are caused by other species (humans or otherwise). Every one of these extinctions is natural. Again, the distinction is made between natural and desirable.

However, what is generally ignored by the rabid environmentalists (as opposed to those who actually do good or have logical things to say), is that extinctions have been occurring...well, since there were species to become extinct. Millions of species over the years have become extinct, for the reasons listed above.

Does that mean it's good species are dying because of human interventions? In some cases, probably so...in other cases, not so much.

The first imperative of any species must be to survive and reproduce. This is why teenagers, once they reach sexual maturity (as opposed to societal maturity) are so eager to have sex. Their survival instincts are telling them very fiercely to reproduce NOW, before something happens which will make this impossible. This is also where the "biological clock" so many women talk about comes from.

The second imperative of any species is to secure its own ecological niche, to ensure its survival. In the case of human being's, this has admittedly run a bit amok, but it is a survival imperative.


What, what's this, a sensible well thought out answer, here godamnit it!;)

It could under the right conditions (pressure and temperature).

Oh please, modern steel making is considerably more complex than "pressure and temperature".

When you find a natural functioning blast furnace let me know.

When you find a natural functioning blast furnace let me know.

Prediction: the response will be "Any functioning blast furnace is natural."

And then we'll go around and around until one by one we leave to throw up.

Any functioning blast furnace is natural.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :p

Okay, let's look at this another way.

Are bird nests natural? Are ant hives (not the ants themselves, but the hives) natural? Are the carapaces that dung beetles build around themselves natural? Are pearls natural?

I think most people would argue that, yes, these are natural, even though they are not formed whole by inanimate nature, but created by a species.

How, then, is it different when humans create something? We take things which occur in nature, and create something new out of them. The difference is, as we have wider access to knowledge which allows us to create on a wider scale.

What we do is natural. As with every other species, humans works to build themselves an ecological niche. We simply think on a more universal scale than most other species. It doesn't mean it's not natural, because it is. If the natural universe could not contain steel, we would not be able to create steel. If the natural universe could not contain a blast furnace to create steel, we could not create a blast furnace.

Every object in this universe was created, whether you believe in intelligent design or a random universe creating physical matter to contain. Humans creating objects are no more unnatural than the universe creating objects.

Okay, let's look at this another way.

Are bird nests natural? Are ant hives (not the ants themselves, but the hives) natural? Are the carapaces that dung beetles build around themselves natural? Are pearls natural?

I think most people would argue that, yes, these are natural, even though they are not formed whole by inanimate nature, but created by a species.

How, then, is it different when humans create something? We take things which occur in nature, and create something new out of them. The difference is, as we have wider access to knowledge which allows us to create on a wider scale.


I think an argument can be made that the tool is natural. The tool that is made by using the tool is not. Which I think is the difference. An ant hill is "natural" in that the ants take things found as a natural resource, existing without any of their intervention, and rearrange it, change it, and build something with it, which is, again, taking something which, as you said occurs in nature and creates something new.

A spider that makes a web uses a biological process to do it. So does the oyster that makes the pearl, and so on.

one can argue that spear made from sharpening a stick on a rock is something "natural". It is taking things existing in nature and creating something new.

Or, let's say a piece of metal, we take a shard of metal and sharpen it on a rock, that sharpened piece of metal is still "natural", ot took existing things in nature and made something new. But if we then take that sharpened piece of metal and carve a chunk of wood down into a wheel, it's arguable that the wheel is not natural, because it took an intervening step, using something that does not, in and of itself, occur in nature.

As such, that wheel, carved with a knife, is not natural as it was not something that existed in nature, nor was it made by things existing in nature. It was made with a carving knife.

So I think I personally would draw the distinction as the tool is natural, the tool made by the tool is not.

But if we then take that sharpened piece of metal and carve a chunk of wood down into a wheel, it’s arguable that the wheel is not natural, because it took an intervening step, using something that does not, in and of itself, occur in nature.
It doesn’t seem a very tenable argument. I mean, the sharpened piece of metal that help make the wheel is something that “does not, in and of itself, occur in nature”.

I don’t think you could have it both ways, at least with the current argument.

It doesn’t seem a very tenable argument. I mean, the sharpened piece of metal that help make the wheel is something that “does not, in and of itself, occur in nature”.

The question is not whether it exists in nature, but whether it can be made b y things existing in nature. THe sharpened piece of metal can. It takes an existing piece of metal and sharpens it on a rock, both entirely existing in nature.

Actually, one probably couldn't find metal just lying around outside a vein, so let's change that to a rock. You take a rock and sharpen it on something, that's now a sharpened rock. You've made something new, but made it entirely from things existin nature. It is still "natural" in that sense.

The carved piece of wood however requires an intervening tool. It is, I think, the difference between "something made" and "something made with something made"

So you are saying that if I scratch the wall or wood or wathever with my nails its natural, but if I do it with my created scratching tool its unnatural?:confused:

So I think I personally would draw the distinction as the tool is natural, the tool made by the tool is not.

would you hold that a tool that is made by a tool that was made directly from natural products is more natural than a tool made by tools which were themselves made by further tools?

would you hold that a tool that is made by a tool that was made directly from natural products is more natural than a tool made by tools which were themselves made by further tools?

Sigworthy.
Can you rephrase that please? A little hard to understand what you mean, i know roughly what you're getting at but due to my pitiful intelligence i kindly ask you to explain that further.

So if I shoot you in the face its your fault you died, because you were too stupid to dodge the bullet.

No, it was his fault he died, because he was too stupid to activate god mode when he woke up that particular morning.

And remember, only people who choose the Rogue class at Age 1 can eventually access the ability to dodge bullets, and also remember that most people take the easy way out and choose the Oaf class, because it's the easiest to use.

The question is not whether it exists in nature, but whether it can be made b y things existing in nature. THe sharpened piece of metal can. It takes an existing piece of metal and sharpens it on a rock, both entirely existing in nature.

Actually, one probably couldn't find metal just lying around outside a vein, so let's change that to a rock. You take a rock and sharpen it on something, that's now a sharpened rock. You've made something new, but made it entirely from things existin nature. It is still "natural" in that sense.

The carved piece of wood however requires an intervening tool. It is, I think, the difference between "something made" and "something made with something made"

Everything is made by things existing in nature. Even steel is made "in nature". It's simply not made in nature on Earth. However, the creation of steel uses natural products, or things made from natural products.

How about this...is a bird's nest which includes pretty, shiny pieces of plastic not a natural object?

Unnatural doesn' t exist!

Can you rephrase that please? A little hard to understand what you mean, i know roughly what you're getting at but due to my pitiful intelligence i kindly ask you to explain that further.

the question is whether there are degrees of naturalness. are the following chains from resources to products distinct in terms of naturalness?

natural materials => product

natural materials => tools => product

natural materials => tools => tools => product

etc.

When a species dies, by wathever reason, it's their own fault. If they were good enough they would have adapted to their current situation. So a species that gets completely destroyed is stupid and deserves to die.
When there's a cold, animals have to adapt, warm the same, lack of water, hunters (human or animal),...

This will start a discussion......

I hope you feel the same way if I end your life.

Everything is made by things existing in nature.

yes, but the question is whether naturalness is a transitive property

How about this...is a bird's nest which includes pretty, shiny pieces of plastic not a natural object?

not entirely, no.

I hope you feel the same way if I end your life.

We already discussed this...:)

the question is whether there are degrees of naturalness. are the following chains from resources to products distinct in terms of naturalness?

natural materials => product

natural materials => tools => product

natural materials => tools => tools => product

etc.

oh right.
You're arguing that every product is natural?
okay what about....if a God did exist i could argue that he/she is not natural, or is this taking what you say the wrong way? i suppose i am being awkward but i'm trying to prove you wrong.
And having great difficulty i might add.

yes, but the question is whether naturalness is a transitive property



not entirely, no.

In that case, we currently have billions of individuals out of thousands (if not millions) of different species who are existing outside of nature. Any animal which lives within a city environment and makes its home out of products found there, or eating the products found there, are living unnatural lives.

At what point does the unnatural become natural? Because you cannot solely condemn one species for doing these things. At best, if you went back to the root of the problem, and condemned only those who actually *created* the unnatural products, you'd have a small portion of the human species which could be condemned. The rest of us are simply using these "unnatural" products, as are so many individuals from so many other species.

And, by the way, humans aren't the only ones who actually create tools.

If God exists he is natural...

I think if a God did exist he'd be pretty unnatural, as he creates everything then he would have to have some properties that are unnatural (to us) in order to make the universe.

oh right.
You're arguing that every product is natural?
okay what about....if a God did exist i could argue that he/she is not natural

If God exists he is natural...

In that case, we currently have billions of individuals out of thousands (if not millions) of different species who are existing outside of nature. Any animal which lives within a city environment and makes its home out of products found there, or eating the products found there, are living unnatural lives.

this doesn't seem problematic to me. well, on an ontological level anyway. it presents all sorts of moral issues, but is an accurate representation of what is going on. would you deny that there is a significant and relevant distinction to be made between things living 'in the wild' as it were, and those living in human dominated landscapes with all that that entails?

At what point does the unnatural become natural? Because you cannot solely condemn one species for doing these things. At best, if you went back to the root of the problem, and condemned only those who actually *created* the unnatural products, you'd have a small portion of the human species which could be condemned. The rest of us are simply using these "unnatural" products, as are so many individuals from so many other species.

And, by the way, humans aren't the only ones who actually create tools.

unnatural doesn't equal bad. at least not directly and simply.

this doesn't seem problematic to me. well, on an ontological level anyway. it presents all sorts of moral issues, but is an accurate representation of what is going on. would you deny that there is a significant and relevant distinction to be made between things living 'in the wild' as it were, and those living in human dominated landscapes with all that that entails?

I would agree wholeheartedly that there is a difference between any species living in the wild and living in a domesticated landscape.

I simply deny that living in a domesticated landscape is unnatural.

I can't help but think of that SomethingAwful article about the life and times of a Dalek slave.You're amazing.
*gasps*

As such, that wheel, carved with a knife, is not natural as it was not something that existed in nature, nor was it made by things existing in nature. It was made with a carving knife.

So I think I personally would draw the distinction as the tool is natural, the tool made by the tool is not.

That just doesn't work really. What you are saying then is that if we chewed the wheel into shape then it would be natural, although its look, and dimensions were exactly the same as the non chewed wheel. You can see where that would get confusing.

Unnatural doesn' t exist!

Soooo umm what was that word that looks remarkedly like Unnatural that you just typed?;)