• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

We are natural.....

Ceritus

Unregistered
C
Joined
Jul 28, 2005
Messages
647
The generations to come have so much joy to experience even if the sunsets are not able to be seen because of a nuclear winter either caused by us or other natural factors. I just do not understand how someone can say something is not natural when everything we create is and always will be natural. Is a massive sky scraper any less natural than an anthill in the jungle? Is a war for any reason any less natural than rival bee hives trying to exterminate each other? Are guns any less natural than a spider web or a snake’s venom? Are biological weapons any less natural than rabies or malaria? Are the Styrofoam cups any less natural than the falling of a seed from a tree?

Is greed, hate, lust, grief any less natural than generosity, love, aversion, hope? Since we inhabit this earth and we use all the resources available to us to do are bidding what could we possibly create or do that is not natural. I just don’t understand :(
 
I follow your logic and have made the same argument about the misuse of that word myself. However, I think the connotation or implication by radical environmentalists, New Agers, etc. is that it means not created by mankind. That something "natual" would have been on the earth if the homo sapies had never arrived.
 
Presumably, if everything is natural, so too is the preference for "natural" things. So don't let it bother you too much.

But wait...being bothered by word misuse is natural also.

Oh, bother...
 
Back at home, I would ask my students when we studied evolution 'At what point did man become unnatural?'

Always provokes some really good debates.

Athon
 
I would say as soon as we become aware of the concept of 'natural' we are no longer.

Either that or, yeah, everything we do is natural.

Isn't this just semantics though? Instead of worrying about 'natural' and 'unnatural' shouldn't we worry more about 'good for the environment' and 'bad for the environment?

Maybe instead of natural and unnatural we should use degrees of complexity?
 
Natural is anything inside Sun Harvest, while unnatural is anything in Wal-Mart, duh.

Funniest thing, I found an online site that offers milled, dried, irradiated seed parts in bulk to make products look and/or feel more "natural." :boggled:
 
DreadNiK said:
Isn't this just semantics though? Instead of worrying about 'natural' and 'unnatural' shouldn't we worry more about 'good for the environment' and 'bad for the environment?
Click to expand...

Why?

Who is to say we won't start breathing in carbon dioxide and breathing out oxygen? Who is to say we won't gain tolerance to more toxicity in the air, water and food? Ofcourse these things would take millions of years to adjust to so we should just ruin our environment at a very slow and steady pace. :)
 
Is greed, hate, lust, grief any less natural than generosity, love, aversion, hope? Since we inhabit this earth and we use all the resources available to us to do are bidding what could we possibly create or do that is not natural. I just don’t understand
Click to expand...

These things are certainly just as natural. But they aren't necessarily just as desirable.
 
Ceritus said:
Why?

Who is to say we won't start breathing in carbon dioxide and breathing out oxygen? Who is to say we won't gain tolerance to more toxicity in the air, water and food? Ofcourse these things would take millions of years to adjust to so we should just ruin our environment at a very slow and steady pace. :)
Click to expand...

"Good for the environment" at this point is anything that will let us survive long enough to stick around for millions of years. So I'd say you are both right.
 
Ceritus said:
Why?

Who is to say we won't start breathing in carbon dioxide and breathing out oxygen? Who is to say we won't gain tolerance to more toxicity in the air, water and food? Ofcourse these things would take millions of years to adjust to so we should just ruin our environment at a very slow and steady pace. :)
Click to expand...

Just because it is possible we'll adapt to do those things doesn't mean it is a good idea to try and find out. However since we won't be around to find out, should we care?

Here are some definitions on dictionary.com I feel are relevant.

nat·u·ral
adj.

1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
4. Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
6. Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
8. Expected and accepted: “In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love” (Duff Cooper).
9. Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.
10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.
 
I think those definitions are just as confusing for the issue. 1 to 3 requires a definition of 'nature', 4 simply replaces unnatural with the equally debatable 'artificial', 8 and 9 are irrelevant. That leaves 10, which gives us some hint that natural refers to pre-modern human influence.

Again, I wonder... would those who use the word in the context of 'human = unnatural" be able to tell me when the defining period was humans separated from nature?

Athon
 
By saying pretty much everything (relating to humans) is natural, one is abusing the word just as those who equate the word natural with inherently good (because you are also abusing the inherently good connotation of the word natural). I'll give you my definition of natural (in the man vs nature sense): anything that would occur without the intervention of humans' abstract thinking capabilities. This definition does not completely seperate humanity from nature but it agrees with definitions 1,2,3,4,6 and 10 given by DreadNik. You can also tell with this definition that things that aren't natural aren't inherently bad either, and in fact can be quite good.
 
Whenever I hear this question (to any one of the many arguments that usually are a prelude to it) I think of this quote from Heinlein.

There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.'" The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature"—but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-face absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the Naturist reveals his hatred for his own race—i.e., his own self-hatred.
In the case of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.
As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women—it strikes me as a fine arrangement -and perfectly "natural" Believe it or not, there were "Naturists" who opposed the first flight to old Earth's Moon as being "unnaturaI" and a "despoiling of Nature."
 
Well, if everything is "natural", then the word becomes useless as it cannot discriminate between any things, that being the sole use of words.

The clear meaning of "natural" is "not made directly by humans, or indirectly resulting from human activity".(For a given meaning of "indirectly").
It's the antonym of "artificial". I see nothing objectionable in that, so long as we don't load the word with emotional baggage.
 
Jorghnassen said:
By saying pretty much everything (relating to humans) is natural, one is abusing the word just as those who equate the word natural with inherently good (because you are also abusing the inherently good connotation of the word natural). I'll give you my definition of natural (in the man vs nature sense): anything that would occur without the intervention of humans' abstract thinking capabilities. This definition does not completely seperate humanity from nature but it agrees with definitions 1,2,3,4,6 and 10 given by DreadNik. You can also tell with this definition that things that aren't natural aren't inherently bad either, and in fact can be quite good.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I like it. Good point, mate.

Athon
 
Soapy Sam said:
The clear meaning of "natural" is "not made directly by humans, or indirectly resulting from human activity".(For a given meaning of "indirectly").
Click to expand...

Well, is my poop unnatural? It is a product of all the "artificial" food I eat and is also made by me a human. So does that mean I release artificial waste? Or is it natural because it is a direct result of human activity that we all do? In a sense though every bit of food we buy from the supermarket whether organic or not is not natural because it was at the very least transported there by humans and/or planted by humans as well thus becoming a product of human intellect and activity.

So if we are not natural and all that we do is not natural wouldn't it mean that the whole world at large is not natural since it has been influenced by human beings? The exhaust from our cars entering the atmosphere and then spreading out and interacting with rain. When the rain falls and vegetation soaks it up is affected by human activity. All the way to the human being cleaning up the oil spills, not only was it affected by human activity when the oil was spilled but it was affected yet again when people came to clean the animals up making it unnatural x2! So if your definition is correct then there is nothing natural left with the (exception of untouched/unexplored space)and is just as meaningless.

So I guess if someone was really into keeping things natural they should do what they could for us not to set foot on any other planet to prevent us from making it unnatural, but if they were to do this then it would be affecting said planet by the human activity of preventing human activity. So the best thing anyone who wants things to remain natural is to do absolutley nothing even breathing could be construed as making the air artificial!
 
Last edited:
What is natural ? Here is my definition.
The essence of natural is that of the element of "cannot-help-it".
uncontrollable, unavoidable, inevitable.

With this you can explain many things.

Thus a natural event is an event just defies intervention.

The Tsunami and hurricane are natural. No one can stop it.
For human to die is natural you cannot avoid it. If human develop gene of "immortality", it will become natural to be able to live forever. When a tree in a remote area unknown to us falls. To you, it fell naturally.

Physics, Chemistry and Biology follows certain Laws that is very very strict. They are undefiable and thus natural.

For the "artifical" food people produce, it is done with human intervention.
They can help it. They can insure the food only have 10% Vitamin C added.
Even if they use natural raw material like wild oranges, they can artifically or unnaturally impose a quality control to use only wild oranges with high VitC content of more than X mg per volume.

But if you live in a society that only provide orange-based food-tablet as the only choice of food, you are given no choice. You will naturally consume the food-tablet through your mouth. And you may also naturally develop disease due to the lack of other vitamin C, and your body's natural need.

As for you poo, you cannot will your body to process the poo in a different way, so it is produced naturally. When you have got to move your bowel, you have got to move your bowel.

However human rights group concerned of your well being. Will and can interfere with the working of your society. They will recognise your unnatural situation and save you from it.

On the other hand, they may also think that you are such a wimp to not rebel against your tormentor and decide not to help you. It that case, your genes just cannot help it, to be eliminated naturally, as a matter of natural selection.

To pour toxic fumes from factory into the air, is unnatural.
This is unnatural because the people can make a decision not to do it.
It is unnatural because the toxin fumes can naturally change the current atmospheric environment and our well being.

But after it was put into the air, you cannot change history anymore.
It become natural to need to deal with the negative impact of the change in our "Natural" environment.

And but the way, if the fumes have an impact on how the sunset might look like. The definition of a natural sunset on earth have changed.
Some time we just cannot help it.
 
What is natural?

Here are dict. definition & more relavent to understand.

natural: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature

We may be developing so many new things. May those be developed from natural things as caned juices from fruits. But we may not be having their inherent sense of right & wrong--so can be thought as unnatural. Fruit is nautral but its canned juices may be unnatural in this sense.

Furthur, since our evolution, our body may be naturally adapted/habitual to many things, so those can be treated as natural, But not adapted/habitual to newly developed things-so can be treated as unnatural which probably will produce confused, shocking, toxic or different effects than naturally known effects to our bodies.

"All humans are natural but still there can be some difference among own son & adopted son"..All dogs can be natural but still there can be some difference between own pet dog & other dogs.:D
 
Last edited:
Dear Ceritus,

I think the point about semantics is important. "Natural" is as meaningless as saying "part of the universe." What we're really talking about is the biosphere versus what V.I. Vernadsky called the noosphere. The biosphere is the product of the ongoing action of life on the planet. The noosphere is the product of the ongoing action of cognition on the biosphere. Technically, a flower is as much a part of the noosphere as a lunchbox is. It's a question of the action of principles.

Environmentalists who decry /pollution in principle/ are really just anti-cognition. Factories and artificial foods are what we do. The only question is whether we are improving the noosphere by making it more beautiful and good, or whether we are making it uglier and wasting its potential. Paving everything and blanketing our cities with smog is ugly, but the only way to make it better is to use cognition and change our transportation and power generating systems.

Rest assured that the universe wants us to be here. The rest of the universe is also ours to transform as we can, for the sake of beauty and goodness.
 
What CplFerro said.
...except for that last bit.

Most things in nature are limited in their behaviors. A fruit tree is often a boon to another creature, a virus generally unwelcome. Others may be one or the other depending on whose eyes are doing the beholding. None can shake their essential nature.

We humans have in our nature something unique, a designing mind, and artifacts are a unique byproduct in all of nature. So we can separate this designed activity apart from the rest of nature and call it "artificial". Artificial activity can be viral and diseased or abundant and healthy. I think what most people mean when they say "natural" is "as close to zero viral and diseased artificial activity as possible", since the abundant and healthy variety maintains or increases the potential of otherwise untouched-by-humans nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom