What's Natural ?

[Jyera]

Consider Level of Control to define Naturalness

I propose to explore and consider
"Level of Control" to define Naturalness.

Insurance do not cover "Natural Disaster".
Because it is not controllable and unpredictable.

So
(a) controllable => unnatural.
(b) Uncontrollable => Natural.


Consider the example:

Man, gun and deers' extinction
1. Man invented Guns.
They control how to make it. They assert(control) the use of it for killing. So this act of hunting is unnatural.

2. The deer are hunted by human with guns.
The deer cannot protest and cannot control their destiny.
So the deers die and be extinct as a natural event.

3. To the deer it is a natural event that cannot of controlled.
But to the human, it is an unnatural act if it is sports hunting.
However if a person hunt the deer with a gun to avoid starvation, then it is natural, because he cannot controll not being starved to death if he don't.

4. But if the deers are aware of the threat and organise themselves to kill the humans, thus assert control over the success of human hunting. Then , to the deers (NOT to the humans), the hunting is unnatural.

 

[Atlas]

I don't think guns are unnatural. I guess I'm thinking that people do very natural things like explore and hunt. In those broad definitions we would all say that's natural.

If we find someone hunting elephants in Central Park with a spoon we don't think that's natural. But in the natural order of things some people go crazy.

Hunting with a spear seems natural... more natural actually than hunting with one's bare hands. We are tool makers, after all. A gun is a spear. We can throw the killing end farther and with more accuracy that's all. Again though, a man hunting bunnies in Central Park with a Bazooka, a machine gun, and a tank does not seem natural but if he were hunting men in a war today, he'd be very natural.

Exploration is another natural thing for animals and us. We're interested and curious. Does that make it natural to sit on the bottom of the ocean? It seems an unnatural environment for man but explorationwise, it where we want to be. Likewise, the moon. It's not a breathable atmosphere and it's practically impossibe to get there. But it was the dream of many generations that made it natural to try and succeed.

One thing that always seemed unnatural was making a 100 ton piece of metal float in water. Another was to make that piece of metal fly. Unbelievable but now we think of them as natural.

I agree that natural is whatever men do and whatever happens, we end up calling something unnatural when it is deviant from the norm, when it is not commonplace. Once it becomes so, it's natural.

 

[Jyera]

Applying "Control-Natural" association to the "Raining vs Watering" scenario of the farmer.

1. Raining to supply water to the farm crop is Natural.
Because the farmer cannot control the rain.
It'll come when it is ready.

2. Watering the farm crop is Unnatural because it is highly controllable. The farmer could explicitly stop the water supply to kill the plants.

3. But from the perspective of the plant/crops.
Whether if it gets the water via Raining or via Watering, it cannot control it from happening. So the raining and watering are both natural event to the crops.

Plants/Crop obviously cannot think, so it might look silly to try to see it from the perspective of the plant.
But this becomes meaningful when we consider from a "human vs human" perspective.


Consider this human vs human case of atomic bombing
(a) Helpless Victim of atomic bombing died naturally by being helplessly be born on the "weaker side" of the warring parties.
They also cannot help being humans, who by nature, have the tendency for war and killing.

(b) Atomic Victim survivors will obviously fight back, with accusation and lawsuit, that controllable and unnatural act of atrocities has been done onto them.

 

[Jyera]

Let me comment on some of Altas example from the basis of "Control-Natural" association.

...snipe...
One thing that always seemed unnatural was making a 100 ton piece of metal float in water. Another was to make that piece of metal fly. Unbelievable but now we think of them as natural.

- We cannot help it (cannot control it) that metal is denser than water. And therefore 100 ton metal will sink in water. So it is natural to expect sinking. And So it is surprising to expect that 100 ton metal can float on water. Conclusion cannot control => Natural.
- We cannot help it (cannot control it) that, by the law of physics, a metal construction of a ship can make it less dense than water when placed in a particular position. (metal + air < dense than water) . Cannot Control => Natural .
- But making a ship is unnatural as man can "Don't do it" (controllable) . Ie don't do build a silly ship. On the other hand, man as species cannot help it that they will find a creative solution to make metal "float in water". To be innovative is natural for our species. None of us can stop or control the level of innovation as a species.
- None of us here can stop our species in continuing building ship, thus building ship has become natural.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Atlas
I agree that natural is whatever men do and whatever happens, we end up calling something unnatural when it is deviant from the norm, when it is not commonplace. Once it becomes so, it's natural.

I would think that it would be more accurate to say ...
"natural is whatever men did andwhatever happened".

What has happened has become a natural cause or natural passing of events.

 

[farmermike]

But how do you know?

In your previous post, you offered the observation that "After a good rain in a dry time you'll also notice that the grass and trees are a little greener from the dust being washed off of them." So clearly you've observed some kink of different result yourself. Does it mean anything important? Your guess is as good as mine.

One thing I've noticed in my garden is that many plants reposition their leaves when it rains. Perhaps they are acting in a way to channel water where they want, triggered by a myriad of stimulus that have repeated themselves for millions of years, I don't know. So far, I haven't seen them act in the same wayl when they are watered by a sprinkler.

I am not arguing that when something happens without man's help that it's somehow ethically better or whatever, just that when life forms evolved under a certain set of predictable happenings, we shouldn't be shocked when things don't happen the way we expect when we change the rules. I’m a fan of scientific discovery & research, but not of human arrogance & hubris when applying our preconceived notions to our environment.

Are humans arrogant?I guess we are,there's nothing like a tornado,hurricane or a good swarm of locusts to put us in our place.But we go on,feeding and providing shelter for ourselves.We've been pretty good at manipulating our environment and putting systems in place that efficiently meet these ends with time and money to spare (at least in the western world).Those plants you mentioned in your garden have evolved under human supervision and look nothing like they did thousands of years ago.
A friend of mine moved up here from N.Y.C in the early 70s.He and a band of hippies set up a commune on an old farm in the area.Mother earth was going to take care of them all as they lived in harmony with nature set apart from the establishment.After a couple years,he had some very choice words to describe what he thought of mother nature.He and his wife now operate a succesful greenhouse business growing ornamentals.

 

[Stitch]

Twenties.

We reached the advanced age of mid-40's around 1900.

If not for science, I'd probably be dead by now.

Depends on the country I guess:
http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____25831.asp

Sweden
1871-1880 45.27
1891-1900 50.94
1901-1910 54.53

Figures for other countries pre-1930 are not so easy to locate for some reason.

Have a look at the current figures on About.com (http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm) for example. Quite a variation still, certainly between third world and "western" but even amonst western as well.

 

[Igopogo]

Farmermike, I think you’re still missing my point.

Are humans arrogant?I guess we are,there's nothing like a tornado,hurricane or a good swarm of locusts to put us in our place.But we go on,feeding and providing shelter for ourselves.

So do many other creatures & lifeforms (that appear not to have our big, reasoning brains), or they wouldn’t be here now. Do we give ourselves too much credit for doing what comes naturally?

We've been pretty good at manipulating our environment and putting systems in place that efficiently meet these ends with time and money to spare (at least in the western world).Those plants you mentioned in your garden have evolved under human supervision and look nothing like they did thousands of years ago.

Yes, but evolution happens with or without us, all we’ve done is chosen a bias for the qualities we want more from what’s already there. If I choose to have children with Sue instead of Mary, my choice has affected the future direction of my family. It doesn’t mean, however, that I’ve invented sex.

I also don’t believe we’ve altered the course of evolution in any great way, it’s far too early to tell. The man-made conditions that allow for our choice of selections to succeed live or die with us, so if humanity ceased to exist as we know it, our past domesticated breeding work would evolve itself to the new-found conditions.

A friend of mine moved up here from N.Y.C in the early 70s.He and a band of hippies set up a commune on an old farm in the area.Mother earth was going to take care of them all as they lived in harmony with nature set apart from the establishment.After a couple years,he had some very choice words to describe what he thought of mother nature.He and his wife now operate a succesful greenhouse business growing ornamentals.

Yes, I’ve met folks like this too, (reminds me of the scene of the shell-shocked commune characters in “Easy Rider”). I think this attitude that ‘the land will provide’ is another angle of the same arrogance I’m talking about.

What conclusion am I supposed to draw from your example above? Which is the better economic model? Does dealing with ‘mother nature’ disappear when crops move inside a greenhouse?

Again, I’m not arguing for natural - “goood”, man made - “baaaad”. Just that when we deny the reality of our place, we lose perspective of what makes good scientific research and discovery, - as opposed to being blinded by faith and assumptions.

(a) controllable => unnatural.
(b) Uncontrollable => Natural.

That may be the attempt, but the concept that we are actually controlling nature is questionable to me. As an analogy, it’s like saying we’re making a ship more sea-worthy while you’re in the ship on the sea. It doesn’t matter what you do, you’re still at the mercy of the sea. Recognizing where you really are helps you analyze your situation and plan ahead better. Assuming you’re controlling the sea is arrogance, (which I'd argue has it's base in ignorance).