If people are animals, everything is a part of nature.

[Offmynoodle]

There's all this hype about how humans are gradually destroying nature and Earth. Stephen Halking recently announced that we'll need to find another planet to liv on within the next thousand years because by then we will have depleted our natural resources. Okay, this may be true, but it's all completely natural. Since humans are merely sophisticated animals, everything we build and the polusion is a part of nature. Spiders make webs. Aren't they natural? How about the nests birds build? They're a part of nature too. So why aren't houses just as natural as spiders' webs and birds' nests? Factories, automobiles, processed food--all natural. We're animals and should be treated the same as spiders and birds in this respect. There is nothing on this Earth, nothing in the entire universe, that isn't completely natural.

[Human]

I agree that humans are animals... but we do unnatural things to the environment, we change the order of things to our liking. Unlike other animals, we don't slot nicely into the food chain because modern society ruins it. If you are human and live in a tribe in the Amazon or Africa, you are truly part of nature because they respect it and live along side with it.

[Capto]

We're simply tweaking nature to fit our rules. That's all that needs to be said.

[Jasperf]

There's all this hype about how humans are gradually destroying nature and Earth. Stephen Halking recently announced that we'll need to find another planet to liv on within the next thousand years because by then we will have depleted our natural resources. Okay, this may be true, but it's all completely natural. Since humans are merely sophisticated animals, everything we build and the polusion is a part of nature. Spiders make webs. Aren't they natural? How about the nests birds build? They're a part of nature too. So why aren't houses just as natural as spiders' webs and birds' nests? Factories, automobiles, processed food--all natural. We're animals and should be treated the same as spiders and birds in this respect. There is nothing on this Earth, nothing in the entire universe, that isn't completely natural.

Yes humans may be part of nature, but thing that we do are not natural. For example, humans are even meant to
Eat meat. Also just because something is built by a human doesn't make it natural, cars are ruining our environment, are they natural! It isn't humans themselfs destroying the planet, it is the things we've built

[Avatia]

Yes humans may be part of nature, but thing that we do are not natural. For example, humans are even meant to
Eat meat.

I'd like to know why you think that humans are meant to eat meat.

I'd then like to know how, even if they are meant to eat meat, how is it unnatural if they do not eat meat?

Also just because something is built by a human doesn't make it natural, cars are ruining our environment, are they natural! It isn't humans themselfs destroying the planet, it is the things we've built

Just because something is built by a human doesn't make it unnatural, either.

How are cars unnatural?

[Gigablue]

I think dichotomy between natural and unnatural is irrelevant. In the end, it all comes down to semantics. Natural things aren't inherently better than unnatural things or vice versa. We need to assess the impacts of what we do, as well as how to mitigate them.

In short, what is natural depends on how you define natural.

[lrg10002]

Humans have tipped the balance between natural and artificial. As we progressed in science and technology, no one stepped back and looked at the bigger picture to make sure we were doing things that would not destroy our world. We are able to combine natural materials into things that aren't so natural- building on what Jasperf said; have you seen a car tree before? Neither have I.

Now that being said, much of what we build now (be it a building or a car) is built to certain standards to minimize its environmental impact. However, since our modern society is built so heavily on oil, there isn't much we can do to stop carbon dioxide spreading into our atmosphere.

[Luminous]

Though humans may be natural, and it was always 'natural' for us to build shelters (for example), should that have to mean that we get to boss around the rest of nature? Did we ask those trees for permission to cut them down? We think it's unfair that large animals (other than people) might eat us, and have eaten people before. If we don't like it we should stop killing animals. OR we could agree that it is natural for them as well as it is natural for us. But we remain hypocrites.
But if people are natural and everything we do is natural, then isn't hypocrisy natural? This is infinite. Is there even an answer?

[Emerald Dream]

Humans are animals, yes...and animals are part of nature.

Not sure where the actual debate is here.

[Mushin]

I think in this situation it's hard to have a solid definition of "natural" when the role of humanity comes into play. Humans have become so technologically advanced over other species, that we need to have an entirely new definition of "natural" when applied to humans and their actions.

For example, humans have the ability to create things other species cannot. Some of these creations are harmful to nature (burning fossil fuels, radiation, toxic waste, garbage, etc.) but some of them are also beneficial (solar panels, hydro electronics, etc.) It turns out though that humans are currently doing more damage to the environment than we are doing good.

The creation of these technologies and development of the human race as a whole would be considered natural. In the sense that it is inevitable for humans to advance and develop (evolution), but it needs to be viewed differently in contrast to other species. Some of the technology we have created is synthetic, which would not be natural in the sense of "coexisting with nature", or "being created from nature". The development and advancement of the human race is natural, what comes as an effect from this may or may not be natural.

I'd like to know why you think that humans are meant to eat meat.

I'd then like to know how, even if they are meant to eat meat, how is it unnatural if they do not eat meat?

Humans are meant to eat meat because they have evolved to do so. Our jaws have developed to make humans capable of eating a carnivorous and herbivorous diet; we're called omnivores.

It's not unnatural to not eat meat. We have the capability of eating both diets, or one if we choose. (Though I'm not sure how eating only meat would work out for your health)

[Avatia]

Humans are meant to eat meat because they have evolved to do so. Our jaws have developed to make humans capable of eating a carnivorous and herbivorous diet; we're called omnivores.

It's not unnatural to not eat meat. We have the capability of eating both diets, or one if we choose. (Though I'm not sure how eating only meat would work out for your health)

Something evolving in a certain manner does not provide us with the "meant", since, evolution is a blind, motiveless process.

[Luminous]

Humans are animals, yes...and animals are part of nature.

Not sure where the actual debate is here.
If humans are animals, and animals are natural, is all of this man made stuff that is ruining the environment natural too?

[Mushin]

Something evolving in a certain manner does not provide us with the "meant", since, evolution is a blind, motiveless process.

Your question was based upon the present state of homo sapiens sapiens, and their inability / ability to eat and digest meat in a natural manner. The present state of the human body is now - at this moment - meant to eat meat. It may have evolved to accomplish this, yes, but at the present time that is no longer applicable since we have passed that point in our evolution.

[Moondust]

I believe humans and animals are separated. We are the only ones who can communicate with each other( well, depends on what you call communicate) while animals use signals and certain noises to tell things like danger. We solve ( most) our problems with logic and reasoning, while animals use force. We are only able to produce 1-6( most of the time) children, while animals can have tons. Animals will forget what happens to them, but humans will remember. We have emotions while animals might for a mate,but have nowhere near enough to match that of humans. plus, we are above them in value, that's why nobody thinks anything when they kill a fish for meat, but are considered murderers if they kill a human.

[Avatia]

Your question was based upon the present state of homo sapiens sapiens, and their inability / ability to eat and digest meat in a natural manner. The present state of the human body is now - at this moment - meant to eat meat. It may have evolved to accomplish this, yes, but at the present time that is no longer applicable since we have passed that point in our evolution.

There is no necessary implication between some species evolving in a certain manner and that same species being meant to do something or eat a particular food. You'd need to show this implication is true. Right now it's just a supposition.

[Camazotz]

If we're debating whether man-made things are "natural", the whole thing is about semantics and is completely irrelevant. [Edit: I didn't even read Gigablue's comment; funny how similar my thought was. Great minds think alike!]

Personally, no, I don't consider everything to be a part of nature based on the way I interpret "natural." I view it as "if this species didn't exist, would this thing remain in nature?" So no, I don't view cars or birds' nests or bee hives or spider webs as "natural." I've had this argument before, and I tend to not have supporters because I claim that beaver dams aren't natural, but I see them as creations, or "artificial."

I believe humans and animals are separated.

Even though humans are technically animals, I also view them as separate entities.

We are the only ones who can communicate with each other( well, depends on what you call communicate) while animals use signals and certain noises to tell things like danger.

Humans are the only species with language; animals can communicate, but no other animal has language.

We solve ( most) our problems with logic and reasoning, while animals use force.

Not really, if anything, I'd say humans are guilty of making emotional decisions, and animals can use basic logic for many different things (don't eat that colorful, poisonous frog).

We are only able to produce 1-6( most of the time) children, while animals can have tons.

Technically, women can have as many children as they have eggs, it's just not going to happen. If someone wanted to, they could have dozens of children.

Animals will forget what happens to them, but humans will remember.

Some animals can remember things; they can be conditioned like trained dolphins or Pavlov's dogs. Elephants are capable of mourning for their dead, and will visit their dead relative's spot of death with pinpoint accuracy years later as a memorial.

We have emotions while animals might for a mate,but have nowhere near enough to match that of humans. plus, we are above them in value, that's why nobody thinks anything when they kill a fish for meat, but are considered murderers if they kill a human.

Not necessarily. Some animals, like elephants, are capable of having emotions for their family, and will grieve when they pass. Some have even gone on killing sprees of African villages after poachers from that village killed their family.

[Jasperf]

I'd like to know why you think that humans are meant to eat meat.

I'd then like to know how, even if they are meant to eat meat, how is it unnatural if they do not eat meat?



Just because something is built by a human doesn't make it unnatural, either.

How are cars unnatural?

There had already been a huge debate over humans eating meat, and it has been proven that humans are infact no omnivores. When any animal acts agains it's natural pattern it's considered unnatural.

How are cars unnatural, well lets see, you don't see one growing in a field do you?
To make it easier, it's like a map, there are natural maps and cultural maps. Natural maps have everything natural on them, e.g a river, cultural have the man effected things e.g a cannel

[Avatia]

There had already been a huge debate over humans eating meat, and it has been proven that humans are infact no omnivores. When any animal acts agains it's natural pattern it's considered unnatural.

How are cars unnatural, well lets see, you don't see one growing in a field do you?

Not everything that is natural must grow in a field.

To make it easier, it's like a map, there are natural maps and cultural maps. Natural maps have everything natural on them, e.g a river, cultural have the man effected things e.g a cannel

So, there are two different types of maps, therefore cars are unnatural.

This reasoning is not withstanding.

[Jasperf]

Not everything that is natural must grow in a field.



So, there are two different types of maps, therefore cars are unnatural.

This reasoning is not withstanding.

It would be much easier for you to try to explain how cars are natural, since you are to arrogant to see the sense.

[Seth.]

Himm... I guess you could say the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs was a product of nature too. Viruses are also a product of nature, but we do what we can to reduce the harm they cause.

[Avatia]

It would be much easier for you to try to explain how cars are natural, since you are to arrogant to see the sense.

Ah, so now we're shifting the burden onto me, simply because I asked you to tell me how they were unnatural. We should note that I did not claim they were natural when I asked you how they were unnatural.
I was asking you, to see if you could provide me with some rational basis for why you consider them unnatural.

However, here is the reasoning behind why I don't just automatically make the supposition that cars are unnatural:

1. Nature exists and it is certainly natural.
2. If something is the result or consequent of a natural thing, then it is also natural.
3. Humans are the result of nature - a natural thing.
4. Humans are therefore, natural.
5. Every part that we make a car from is the result of nature itself - a natural thing.
6. The idea of a car is the result of humans - a natural thing.
7. The construction of a car is the result of humans - a natural thing.
8. There is nothing left about a car that would be the result of something that is not natural.
____________________
9. Nowhere in the above line of reasoning can there be found a reason to believe that a car would be anything other than natural, in fact, there are only reasons to believe that it would be natural.


Given the above, 8-premise argument, I cannot find any reason that we would consider a car to be unnatural.

Your issue would likely be taken with the premise on line #2, since everything else following that in the argument bases itself on that premise.

Do notice that I'm not arguing that cars are natural. Only that there doesn't appear to be a reason to believe otherwise, and instead, there are more reasons to believe that it is natural.

I look forward to your explanation of premise #2's falsity.

[britishboy]

is this stuff natural?...
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3535/icrx.jpg (http://img9.imageshack.us/i/icrx.jpg/)
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1079/aesf.jpg (http://img20.imageshack.us/i/aesf.jpg/)
http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/2231/0cis.jpg (http://img842.imageshack.us/i/0cis.jpg/)
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/2920/duuq.jpg (http://img196.imageshack.us/i/duuq.jpg/)
http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4186/pbfh.jpg (http://img571.imageshack.us/i/pbfh.jpg/)
nothing man made is natural!
its a nice theory but all that stuff is man made an by definition unnatural, that's a fact, I remember doing a lesson in primary school about it!

[Avatia]

Something isn't a fact simply because someone tells you it is so or because you fervently believe it.

If you'd like to present an actual case for why any of the above is unnatural, I'd gladly take it into thorough consideration.

However, if we're just going to go,
"It's unnatural because look at my pictures.",
or
"It's unnatural because I was told it is so.",

then I, and anyone else who would require a rational basis for what they believe would not be swayed.

I'm only requesting a consistent line of reasoning to explain why it is decided that once we have some object that happens to be the creation of this one particular breed of evolved ape (humankind), then it necessarily must be unnatural.

No one should be convinced by any sort of, "I think so, so it is" or, "this arbitrary person says so" or any notes from your mother about the subject. Those are not considered evidence.

[britishboy]

Something isn't a fact simply because someone tells you it is so or because you fervently believe it.

it is when you do a lesson on it in primary school, to let you know these facts! I do see and respect your points but its not classed as natural, it's man made

[Avatia]

it is when you do a lesson on it in primary school, to let you know these facts! I do see and respect your points but its not classed as natural, it's man made

Unfortunately, that's not enough, either. I had lessons in primary school where the teacher told me that human beings weren't animals and that there was enough force behind your sneeze to pop your eyes out of your head if you didn't close your eyelids.

I still have yet to see a justification behind your lesson. I thought that's what school was for - to teach?

If you truly did learn this and it is a fact, then there is a reason as to why it is a fact, correct? It is not simply a fact by virtue of it being desired to be one, now is it?

Anything that's a fact has a reason for it to be a fact. Provide me this reason and we will see if you're correct.

I apologize if I'm not absolutely convinced beyond all reasonable doubt of the truth just by what Mrs. Turner in homeroom is required to tell a group of children before sloppy joe lunch time in the cafeteria.

[CharlieHorse]

There's all this hype about how humans are gradually destroying nature and Earth. Stephen Halking recently announced that we'll need to find another planet to liv on within the next thousand years because by then we will have depleted our natural resources. Okay, this may be true, but it's all completely natural. Since humans are merely sophisticated animals, everything we build and the polusion is a part of nature. Spiders make webs. Aren't they natural? How about the nests birds build? They're a part of nature too. So why aren't houses just as natural as spiders' webs and birds' nests? Factories, automobiles, processed food--all natural. We're animals and should be treated the same as spiders and birds in this respect. There is nothing on this Earth, nothing in the entire universe, that isn't completely natural.

You clearly don't know what natural means.
5736

When most people say Natural, they mean that it is without human interference.