Unnatural

reply to post by v01i0


Well as nobody seems to have defined it so far I will have a go, that which is natural is that which we do not have intrinsic control over, it is not made by us, but by nature, just because we are made by nature doesn't necessarly mean what we create is therefore natural. We have the ability to manipulate what is found in nature, transforming it into something not naturaly occuring or unatural.

P.S missed some of the last replys when I posted this, and what is natural or unatural has nothing to do with our code of morals as in how we conduct ourselves in society, Tinfoilhatman puts this point across brilliantly, but when it comes to morals, I often wonder if there foundation is built in by our nature, or is it that they are purely something learned so as to function in society?
I'm of the opinion that all animals that live in social groups have some form of learned and also built in moral codes, such animals, ourselves included, don't think as one, like the hive mind, but think as a group, the group overides the individual free will in exchange for a shared will, in return for the shared benifits of being in a society or group. It also occurs in nature that there is a leader or figurehead in any society who the others look to for guidance. What defines this leader is, they are best of the group by some traits or others. And what does this leader do to mantain there status? They create some rules or boundries and most importantly a heicharchy, a pecking order. And this example is just a group of monkeys, so where do morals come into it? Well the monkey that does right thing by all the others, spends time grooming and being nice to others wins the respect and affections of the others, and goes up the pecking order, and if the monkey is also strong and cunning, is prime candidate for being the leader. Thats just generalising the basics even for a group of monkeys. But even amongst
this small group, a code of conduct exists and is needed to bind the group together.
Even if it does mean slinging poo at each other to work out whos poo stinks the most!

reply to post by v01i0


Just like the word Supernatural. A nonsense word to presumptory label something that does not fit in with the currently widely accepted models of reality as viewed by scientism *rigid materialism because science is confined to just the material*.

When you get down to it...everything is made of the same thing...whether you want to call it matter or energy or something else...Humans started as something completely different to what we are today...and in a few million years (if we last that long) we will be something completely different to what we are now, and those changes have the possibility of happening many different ways. There is no set way something should be, or will be. In fact, no two Humans on Earth are completely identical in every way. Are any of them "unnatural" or simply "different"? Humans group together based on what they feel is "natural", familiar or similar to something they know. As an example, we divide ourselves up based on religion, sexuality, race etc. We put a label on just about everything actually.

Now, these groups which herd together usually claim other groups are "wrong" in some fashion, such as their beliefs or sexuality. Something "different" to themselves just cannot be "natural", it's out of place. Well let me explain one thing to you all. I am proud to be a unique individual that doesn't easily get caught up in "trends" or trot along with herds of sheeple. My beliefs and values are hardly mainstream, and my paradigms would not be easily accepted by the "majority". Is it "unnatural" to be a conspiracy theorist? Are we different? Do we question and think too much? Are we crazy people? Are we "dangerous" to the stability of a Government? Could we be considered terrorists? Are we that out of order that we need to be "pulled back in line"?

Have a good day.

reply to post by v01i0


Thank You for your reply.

I did

You are right, cars don't grow in the trees and so on. But we humans cannot violate laws of the universe and all our products are natural

Humans can violate the laws of nature and we do. Many products are not natural, they are manufactured.
If they were natural, they would exist already.

through the fact that human makes the products out of nature. Even beavers build dams and animals use tools.

You raise an excellent point by introducing the example set by beavers.
Beavers use existing natural materials and they uses these materials to maximum benefit in order to sustain life, this has an economy to it.
This is a perfect example of the laws of nature. Maximum efficiency within a sustainable framework of existing naturally occurring materials for the benefit and sustainability of life.
It is this natural law that has made life possible, and has made it sustainable.

Until we changed things.
We acted unnaturally.

When we step outside of the natural laws and processes, like we do, we violate the laws of nature.
We have so many numerous examples of us doing this that I would need a year to list them.
Making new chemicals and materials, for example, that are then introduced into a system based on these natural laws is to act outside of nature, and we can see the impact these materials and chemical have. On the surface of things they appear advantageous, but only to US. In relation to nature, they are not economical, they have negative effects on the natural system in general and are unsustainable.
Nature does not act like that, at all.

Like DDT as a chemical we used and it made soils toxic, that destroyed the delicate balance nature holds as law.
This resulted in numerous species becoming extinct, a massive negative impact from operating against the laws of nature.
Like when a person smokes cigarettes and introduces a host of carcinogenic and chemical agents into the body that cause cell mutation which results in cancer and death. Is that natural?
Like plastics that cannot be broken down, that end in the food chain, that kill birds that eat small fish that eat that plastic.
I doubt nature had that down as law.
When we fail to take the most out of nature, the way nature does, and indeed when we use nature(like creating new chemical or materials) in a way that is negative, we violate the laws of nature.

Remember this, that nature has specific parameters for which life exists and is maintained.
This is natural law.
The fact that massive species extinction, soil erosion and degradation, deforestation, rivers and lakes becoming arid, desertification, herbicide, pesticide and fertilizers changing ecosystems is all happening due to our behavior is undeniable.
We are operating outside of the natural laws.
Do you understand what it means for something to be non-biodegradable?
That means nature cannot break it down. That means it is unnatural.
Considering natural life is a supremely efficient system of balancing and recycling all material, to introduce materials it cannot cope with, is acting outside of nature. This is acting against the laws of nature.

I hope you can see what I mean. When you state what is natural, you also have to look at how nature balances all. How it sustains all. How does nature behave?
When we behave outside of that, we act unnaturally.
Your OP may be veiled, like many posters have observed, about sexuality, but I think you have failed to consider that nature also has a system of behavior that relegates behavior outside of that as being unnatural.

To say that because we made something must mean by proxy, it is natural, is to ignore the way nature creates, uses, and maintains its systems.
We do not act like nature in any way when we create, use, and maintain our systems.

So, in saying that, I contend that the above has many implications relating to how we behave and what can be deemed natural about that behavior!

Some Human Behavior would appear to be not typical of natural law. It would be wrong to say that the way we behave is natural purely because humans are a product of nature, when you consider that we act outside of the way nature operates.
What ramifications this has on other debates, regarding what is natural and what is not natural about sexuality, begs many questions I am sure.



Thank you again, for replying to my post.

reply to post by atlasastro


i do not think i can, i am learning still, and this thread made me think in different ways, and for that i am thankful.

reply to post by tinfoilman


Thanks for indepth reply

You tie down the good/wrong very precisesly there where it belongs in my opinion as well. While in nature everything indeed goes, it is our society and culture which has invented the "unnatural" as something that represents evil or is against the will of god.

Very often do people attach ethical values to things and what they perceive evil, is also often unnatural - or against the will of god. However, whether or not there is god, the universe is very natural place - it is only us human who falsely see things that does fit their ethics as unnatural.

-v

Originally posted by Haydn_17
Ok, why don't we replace the word Natural with Normal

Is it normal for someone to have 4 arms?

Is it normal for somebody to be Gay/Lesbian?

Not really considering it doesnt follow a normal trend.

So its abnormal

There is no such thing as ''normal'', as somebody stated before it depends on people's point of view which is influenced by cultural and/or religious beliefs. I think it's natural to hold whatever each individual sees as natural as long as they are not harming anyone in the process

reply to post by atlasastro

Originally posted by atlasastro

I hope you can see what I mean.

I think I do. And thanks for explaining your vision.

You seem to make an distinction on what is artificial and what exists in nature per se, without any influence or interference made by humans. I recognize this too, but I maintain that whatever we create out of nature is in sense natural, because out of nature cannot come unnatural. Let's take the example of car again. True, we have invented cars, and they do not exists in nature without us building them. But we as natural beings (as part of nature) create cars based on our knowledge about nature, as well as on our capability to manipulate nature.

As far as I understood your previous post you say that

1) It is not natural unless it exists in nature without manipulation and interference of human beings.

2) And because we interfere, we break the laws of nature somehow, by creating artifacts.

This is indeed what we do, but I see it to be natural. If it exists, it is natural. And if it exists, it cannot violate any laws determined by nature - therefore all that exists is natural. A bit of an circular reasoning there, but I fail to see flaw in it at the moment.

-v

Originally posted by v01i0

I think I do. And thanks for explaining your vision.

No problem.

You seem to make an distinction on what is artificial and what exists in nature per se, without any influence or interference made by humans.

It is not only I who makes this distinction, but nature itself. Remember that all we make impacts on nature itself. Nature gives us feedback in relation to the things we make. Remember too that humanity also makes a distinction between what is natural by using terms like man-made or anthropogenic effect etc. etc.

I recognize this too, but I maintain that whatever we create out of nature is in sense natural, because out of nature cannot come unnatural.

I understand that, but what you also must consider is that the term nature does not only mean the material aspects that manifest in that natural environment, but also how they all interact and behave in order to maintain that nature as nature itself maintains it. When we fail to operate in the sam way nature does, we act unlike nature. I am sure you are aware of this.

Let's take the example of car again. True, we have invented cars, and they do not exists in nature without us building them. But we as natural beings (as part of nature) create cars based on our knowledge about nature, as well as on our capability to manipulate nature.

I agree, but look at how destructive a car is, does it recycle itself efficiently, how does nature cope with cars as a new aspect of nature. How has the impact of cars changed our natural environment. Once we had cars, we needed roads, we need more metals, we needed more oil, we needed cheaper materials, so we made more plastics, we made new chemicals to improve mechanics, we needed better longer lasting rubbers for wheels and these and other materials that take massive amounts of time to break down, some of them don't break down. Then we have oil, lubricants and hydraulic fluids that have adverse effects on life running into water ways as run off.
All in order to move us and stuff around.
Natures solution for our mobility, in all aspects, has been far more effective.

1) It is not natural unless it exists in nature without manipulation and interference of human beings.

I don't just say that, schools, businesses, governments and science does.
That is why we have terms like artificial or man made or synthetic. It is why businesses, advertisers and practitioners emphasis terms like "organic", "natural products", "natural remedies" or "natural therapies".
We actively distinguish between naturally occurring aspects of nature and those generated or altered by humans.
It is why we inform people of Genetically modified crops, why we stipulate a difference between butter and artificial butter. It is why we have labels and terms for artificial sweeteners, food colorings and artificial food flavors.
We make clear distinctions between natural and unnatural aspects of our existence everyday in the most mundane and basic ways. Polyester or Cotton? Nylon or Wool?

2) And because we interfere, we break the laws of nature somehow, by creating artifacts.

Yes and No. It is not just the interference, but the manner in which we interfere. Remember, we know that Nature operates within certain parameters.
When we behave outside of these parameters, our behavior is not natural. It is unlike nature, and so unnatural.
Do you know what homeostasis is?
Use your own body as an analogy.
You body is a beautiful system that maintains a complex amount of interactions and exchanges all in order to support and maintain life. It is incredibly effective and efficient.
But we know that the natural body can only operate within certain parameters in order to maintain homeostasis.
In order to facilitate life, the human body is reliant on laws of behavior, wouldn't you agree. Like drinking water, eating a balanced diet, mobility(say activity), breathing, sleeping. This is natural to the body and laws that govern the bodies ability to maintain homeostasis for the benefit of life.
Now change that, drink alcohol(natural product), smoke tabacco(a leaf), avoid activity, avoid regular sleep( Like an ATS member :lol.
What happens to the body? It losses its ability to maintain homeostasis, it losses the benefit of quality of life. All from acting in a manner unnatural to an aspect of nature, that being our bodies.

So, again, I contend, that nature does not simply relate to what may manifest as material in our existence, but how we use it, how it interacts with nature and natures ability to cope with that within natures own parameters.

Can I ask you a simple question.
Do you see nature coping with all we have created?
If you really see these things as natural, then nature must be coping with these things, as they are logical to nature itself and how it behaves.

This is indeed what we do, but I see it to be natural. If it exists, it is natural. And if it exists, it cannot violate any laws determined by nature - therefore all that exists is natural. A bit of an circular reasoning there, but I fail to see flaw in it at the moment.

The flaw would be in the result of us as an aspect of nature failing to act in the same way nature does with what we have created.
Nature acts in a certain manner in all that nature has created.
We do not. We do not act like nature even though we have created aspects from that very nature. In fact, many of our creations are extremely detrimental to that very nature, which also includes us.

You raise an interesting question though. Does the existence of something simply deem it natural?

We answer that question ourselves, already. In philosophy, in science and in religion.
We debate about the topics of cloning, genetically modified crops, vaccines, plastic surgery.
Issues about our behavior being unnatural, it being essentially about man toying or changing nature, and its implications on nature as well as ourselves.

We already distinguish between something that exists naturally, and that which does not.

We know we are operating in an unnatural manner, this is why we have thousands of environment and animal welfare groups and political parties advocating on natures behalf now.

Think about what nature is, and what it means to be natural.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to consider my posts, and sharing you thoughts in reply.

reply to post by threadkiller


Join the club brother.
I know where you are at.

reply to post by atlasastro


Yes I see what you mean with the example about homeostasis. It is true, that in order to sustain it, we need certain kind of environment. We cannot survive in space and otherwise extremely different conditions which we are used to. But be it too cold, or too hot or otherwise unsuitable for human being, we couldn't call these varying conditions unnatural, but merely improper for human being (there has been already few posters who has pointed this out). So when we use a lot of harmful substances and behave (which in themselves, are not unnatural) the way we shouldn't, I wouldn't call that unnatural but improper instead.

So as Protagoras - or so it is claimed , here human being too are the measure of everything.

Basically I think that our disagreement here is merely conceptual, as you too seem to agree that unnatural is not in fact unnatural, but improper? Ageed?

Originally posted by atlasastro

Can I ask you a simple question.
Do you see nature coping with all we have created?
If you really see these things as natural, then nature must be coping with these things, as they are logical to nature itself and how it behaves.

Good question. I think that nature itself can cope with everything we humans might come up with. But I do agree with you that the current way how ecosystem works as a whole, may be altered due human interference. If we destroy our forest and natural resource, the planet can cope, but we humans (and other creatures, who are dependent on similar conditions as we are) may suffer greatly, or even may extinct.

So we return to the question of properness and improperness. May I suppose this issue of naturalness to be already concluded?

A quick YouTube clip for clarificiation. I thought that UG said it pretty well



-v

Originally posted by atlasastro
Is plastic natural?
Does it occur naturally?

Plastic is manufactured by humans.
Humans can create unnatural products.
Humans can act unnaturally.

Plastic occurs naturally because it was created by humans and humans are a part of nature.

I think that's the basic thesis of the OP.

Sort of renders the term "natural" meaningless or at least tautological, however.

reply to post by NewlyAwakened


That's exatly the point.

It seems to be a tautology. At least logically. Maybe someday someone will prove it wrong by violating the laws of existence

-v

we know something is not natural when we have distorted it as not what nature intended.

as simple as that.

reply to post by platipus


To this I'd reply that "unknown are the ways of nature".

I mean, we don't know much about intentions of all this. And I am quite convinced that we cannot act in not natural way.

-v

Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by atlasastro

 

Yes I see what you mean with the example about homeostasis. It is true, that in order to sustain it, we need certain kind of environment. We cannot survive in space and otherwise extremely different conditions which we are used to. But be it too cold, or too hot or otherwise unsuitable for human being, we couldn't call these varying conditions unnatural,

I am not calling those conditions unnatural, because they are natural conditions. I am calling behavior that pushes us outside of the way nature behaves, as being unnatural. I am saying also that we create conditions that are not natural, and we see this. It has negative effects. This would put these conditions and behavior, outside of nature, making it unnatural.

but merely improper for human being (there has been already few posters who has pointed this out). So when we use a lot of harmful substances and behave (which in themselves, are not unnatural) the way we shouldn't, I wouldn't call that unnatural but improper instead.

If there is an improper way that things are used, then there is also a proper way. So there would be a natural way to behave and an unnatural way. That is what I am saying.
Remember, you already accept that nature would have us behave in a proper way. The implications of behaving according to the laws of nature is to have sustainable life, to the best possible quality in the most economical manner for all of nature. Behaving improperly, has a negative effect that defies the law of nature, so improper behavior is unnatural.

So as Protagoras - or so it is claimed

, here human being too are the measure of everything.

Yes we are.

Basically I think that our disagreement here is merely conceptual, as you too seem to agree that unnatural is not in fact unnatural, but improper? Ageed?

I think our disagreement in in the fact that you need to defend the proposition that unnatural is a logical fallacy.
Where as I contend that unnatural is a description of aspects that do not exist naturally. That it also describes behavior that does not adhere to the logic or law of nature.
And that we can see that natural material and behavior is specific to the system with the result being an incredible economy in order to support and maintain life.
That we also can see that unnatural materials, and behavior conflict with natural laws and these conflicts are obvious as being unnatural when juxtaposed with the natural world and its processes and systems, it is the existing materials and the system of the natural world itself, that defines things as unnatural. Which is why we make these distinction ourselves, everyday.

What I think is significant is that whether we relegate materials and behavior to being natural or unnatural, proper or improper, this has implications to the way we behave and it can then be said by some that our actions can be deemed improper or unnatural in relation to nature in general.
For me personally, this blurs the lines and creates opportunities were one can make a mistake of implying that if we label a behavior unnatural or improper just from that naturalistic perspective, then it carries with it values relating to good or evil, right or wrong. I think our ethics and morals can get confused by appealing to a naturalistic point of view concerning issues that may applied to make a basic view or judgement on sexuality within our societies.

Good question. I think that nature itself can cope with everything we humans might come up with.

I agree, that the universe will cope with us, at least at this point in time given our relative isolation on earth.

But I do agree with you that the current way how ecosystem works as a whole, may be altered due human interference.

There is no "may" involved my friend. It is being altered.

If we destroy our forest and natural resource, the planet can cope, but we humans (and other creatures, who are dependent on similar conditions as we are) may suffer greatly, or even may extinct.

You answer an important question relating to what is natural and unnatural.
Nature has spent billions of years developing what were we are now.
It has done this within the fine parameters that govern and balance life.
Million, if not billions of life forms on earth have developed in tandem by these natural processes alone. But you make a distinction between the planet coping but that we, and many other life forms will not. How do you distinguish between one aspect of nature surviving, and some of it not.
You point out why, our behavior.
It is not natural is it, when you consider how nature behaved in order to get us here, and the way we behave, you are able to make a clear distinction between two natural aspects of nature purely by the way these natural aspect behave!

So we return to the question of properness and improperness. May I suppose this issue of naturalness to be already concluded?

You can suppose that, sure.
But think about what you have said.
Proper or improper?
You could argue this exactly as you have the OP.
Nothing in the universe is improper, if you are able to do something, then logically, it must be proper.

Now, that is a can of worms.

I enjoyed reading your post, thanks again.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

Plastic occurs naturally because it was created by humans and humans are a part of nature.

I understand that. But the OP does not consider that the use, and behavior of plastic, its effect on nature, and natures ability to use it in the same manner and with the same economy with which it uses natural materials makes it different.
This is not simply about what exists, but why, and how and the consequences of that existence and how it interacts within the systems and processes of nature.

I think that's the basic thesis of the OP.

Yes, it is a basic thesis.
I think its a great topic to discuss. The OP has done well to introduce this.

Sort of renders the term "natural" meaningless or at least tautological, however.

Not to me!

something I'm pondering,

can we say that, what is in our nature to do, is natural?

and then I remember the story of the turtle and the scorpion....


a second thought:
Is war natural?
Looking at the animal kingdom, most animals will fight to death for their territory, their mate and food. It's their instict to do so. So is that same instict present in us humans aswell? Is that why we have wars over land and economy?

reply to post by atlasastro

Well, I suppose I agree with you, I'm just not sure what difference it makes.

Whenever people complain that such-and-such is unnatural, I wonder to what ends they are complaining. What exactly are we supposed to do about it? The world will end someday anyway. So will the whole universe. I don't mean to get all nihilistic but I feel like that's where environmentalists are already when they get all dejected over the fact that humans exist. I want to say "and?".

Gotta say I'm mostly in line with Carlin on the issue of nature:

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
reply to post by atlasastro

 

Well, I suppose I agree with you, I'm just not sure what difference it makes.

Who said anything about making a difference. This thread is concerning unnatural being a logical fallacy.

Whenever people complain that such-and-such is unnatural, I wonder to what ends they are complaining.

Why not ask them then, surely that would be a logical place to start.

What exactly are we supposed to do about it?

You following statement answers this, so I'll take this as rhetorical.

The world will end someday anyway.

You will die some day, so why bother living, hey! You'll only get hungry again, so why bother eating. Don't wake up, you'll only get tired again.
I need an Emo tune.

So will the whole universe. I don't mean to get all nihilistic but I feel like that's where environmentalists are already when they get all dejected over the fact that humans exist.

Maybe your feelings are not a real indication of where environmentalists are at, have you considered that?

Are all environmentalists or people passionate about trying to maintain a natural balance in our planet, all dejected nihilists?

I think your view is narrow and unfair. I admit though, like any ideology or philosophy, you will have extremes to the spectrum, but in general I would argue that environmentalists actually have the best interests of humans at heart because they know that the environment is what makes our life possible. The conservation or well being of our environment is our best interests, that conservation is our own conservation.
That would be a natural instinct. Survival. Flight or fight, have you considered that as a possibility, that conservation or environmentalism is actually a defense mechanism from an organism trying to sustain its ability to survive?
Conservation would be logical behavior to nature. As that what nature does, it conserves and maintains a balance in environment. As an aspect of nature, humans interested in the economics and benefits of conservation, would be acting naturally.

Gotta say I'm mostly in line with Carlin on the issue of nature:

I love George. Not as much as I love Bill Hicks.
I guess I could I should be apathetic simply because a comic has simplified a debate by reducing one side of it to a caricature and a stereotype.

They want you to feel hopeless.