Natural Humans

[WI Crippler]

I was thinking about something while on the crapper the other night ( where all great thoughts are formulated ).

There seems to be this wording of how humans interact with nature. You always hear the words about how "unnatural" something is, in regards to human elements affecting nature. Whether its GW, or turning swampland into a golf course, or the foods we eat people are always critical of the human being as being unnatural, or a negative impactor to our world.

Are we not, at the most basic atomic levels, made from the same stuff as everything else? Is not our evolution completely due to the forces to nature, and therefor our current state "natural". We use elements that exist in nature to our advantage.

Why are we demonizing ourselves and our impact as being unnatural, when we are indeed natural??

 

[nes]

I'll just say that some words simply can't be explained.
By your explanation, how is anything not natural?

We don't really have solid definitions for words such as intelligence, life, time, energy, space, waves, dimension, color, etc...

I would like to see someone make a definition of these words without using synonyms of these words or using words that ultimately depend on the word that is being defined.

I was making the definition for natural until I found out I simply could not define intelligence.


My failed attempt to make a definition of the word natural which makes no sense.

An entity(s) structure, pattern, or organization that was caused by an event(s) which was not caused as a result of an entity(s) that was altered as a result of an entity(s) alteration which was a result of an entity(s) having no intelligence up to a certain level of intelligence.


I realized this before, in spacetime, the faster the speed (or velocity) an object goes, the slower time goes. But the problem here is that speed is determined by both time and distance traveled.

According to what some (scientist) think

1. Distance traveled is determined by both speed and time.
2. Time is determined by speed and gravity.
3. Speed is determined by time and distance traveled.
4. Distance is determined by space.
5. gravity is determined by mass and time (think about this one a little)
6. Mass is ?
7. Space is ?
8. Time is ?
9. Gravity is ?
10. energy is ?

In conclusion (of what scientist think ),

Speed partially determines time and time partially determines speed.

Gravity partially determines time (can also determine speed) and time partially determines gravity.



Gravity also has an infinite range through space, if space wrapped around then wouldn't we be attracted to gravity in an infinite loop?


Mass, space, time, intelligence, colors, etc... can all be understood and observed, but just can't be completely defined in words.

Lets also not forget that we observe that somehow this universe ended up far more "matter" particles that make up atoms instead of "anti-matter" particles that make up atoms. Why our universe has 2 charges for particles, positive and negative, etc...

 

[WI Crippler]

Well I wasn't trying to get too deep here. All I am wondering is if we humans and our actions are natural ( i.e. similar intelligence/situations arise on other worlds given proper conditions and time) or if we are the demons that we make ourselves out to be with our interspecies murder, shaping of the planet to our convienence, "exploitation" of natural resources, etc......

Are the things we are doing counter to nature itself, or are our actions completely natural and a process of evolution......

Basically are we evolving or de-evolving??

 

[rivrrat]

men are de-evolving. Women are evolving. Pretty simple there, WI, but I can see why you'd be confused. It's okay though, we'll be sure to keep you around as a stud for breeding purposes. At least for a little while. :mrgreen:

 

[WI Crippler]

It's okay though, we'll be sure to keep you around as a stud for breeding purposes. At least for a little while. :mrgreen:

Well thats all I ask. Just so long as I don't have to pretend to be interested in what women have to say......

 

[rivrrat]

Well thats all I ask. Just so long as I don't have to pretend to be interested in what women have to say......

You mean, pretend to understand what women have to say, right? I know it's difficult and all, and I completely understand why men have this ole mantra about not being interested in what women have to say. It's to save face... and that's cool. We all get it, believe me. If you just pretend you don't care and aren't 'listening' to what women say, then you don't have to admit that you just simply don't understand the logical reasoning and sound information that we women provide.

It's all good, dude. We women get it, and we'll be sure to keep you in a suitable place where you won't be bothered by intelligent conversation. In other words, we'll keep you with the other men.

:mrgreen:

 

[WI Crippler]

You mean, pretend to understand what women have to say, right? I know it's difficult and all, and I completely understand why men have this ole mantra about not being interested in what women have to say. It's to save face... and that's cool. We all get it, believe me. If you just pretend you don't care and aren't 'listening' to what women say, then you don't have to admit that you just simply don't understand the logical reasoning and sound information that we women provide.

It's all good, dude. We women get it, and we'll be sure to keep you in a suitable place where you won't be bothered by intelligent conversation. In other words, we'll keep you with the other men.

:mrgreen:

Is this "logical reasoning" that we men don't understand the same logical reasoning that requires women own 20 purses and 30 pairs of shoes, even though they don't use or wear well over half of them.....

Yeah keep me locked up, and just let me out to feed and mate. Give me some kind of a ball to play with too. Its preferable to womens "logic". :2razz:

 

[nes]

I think we aren't natural since we change our environment to adapt to us while other organisms adapt to their environment. A farm isn't natural because it wouldn't come about without an organism having the intelligence to change the environment. But is material that goes in through a non-living machine and is then altered natural?

Heres my simpler definition of what is natural.

Material that was not modified by an organism that does not use tools to modify or create material or material that was not created or modified by a non-living machine.

Also means

An organism that does not use tools to modify or create material.

 

[WI Crippler]

I think we aren't natural since we change our environment to adapt to us while other organisms adapt to their environment. A farm isn't natural because it wouldn't come about without an organism having the intelligence to change the environment. But is material that goes in through a non-living machine and is then altered natural?

So then where do we come from?? Through evolution, can the planet eventually create an unnatural being?? From another planet, did aliens deposit us here or some other kind of Scientology belief?? Or did some ultra powerful being snap his fingers and bring us into existence??

 

[nes]

So then where do we come from??

I don't know where we came from.

Through evolution, can the planet eventually create an unnatural being??

Yes because an organism may use tools (that are not its own body parts) to modify or create material.

From another planet, did aliens deposit us here or some other kind of Scientology belief??

I see the point of why this belief might just a well be valid as any other belief, this belief simply doesn't explain how the universe came in to existence, there is nothing about the laws of nature being violated in this belief.

Of course then one can argue that why isn't any other belief other than Christianity just as valid as well?

Article that I just now googled about this here: God Revealed to the Rational Skeptic - Why Christianity?

Or did some ultra powerful being snap his fingers and bring us into existence??

I think that one becomes existent is when a "soul" is created, not when material is created or modified.


What caused anything to exist in the first place?

 

[rivrrat]

As an example, Otters use tools (rocks) to open mussels. Is that unnatural?

Technically, everything we do is natural. When people use the term nature and natural, they tend to mean 'not man made'. I can sympathize to a point, since I would 10x rather see a forest or the ocean as opposed to ANY man-made "unnatural" structure.

Those structures are 'unnatural' because we made them.

We didn't make the ocean, it's natural. We didn't make the forest, it's natural.

Destroying nature is deemed 'unnatural' even though every species does it to some extent. Man, however, does it to such a vast extent that it destroys not only natural habitats, but other entire species. And threatens even ourselves. There seems to be a natural cycle of things in the animal kingdom that man is no longer a part of. We come, we kill, we destroy, we dominate. Every animal on this planet has natural enemies (except for maybe sharks). There is something that feeds on every species. There is something every species feeds on. But it all balances itself out. Until you add mankind. We are the natural enemy of *everything*, and we have no natural enemies ourselves.

We are also one of only two animals who are known to kill solely for pleasure.

Is it all unnatural? Nah, I don't guess so. Since it's present in nature, it must therefore be natural.

Even aliens would be natural, as they would be part of our natural universe.

 

[nes]

As for the article I just googled, the author makes some outrageous claims based on his personal interpretation of the bible :roll:. I think only most parts of the article from the beginning to about half way seem to be reasonable.

As an example, Otters use tools (rocks) to open mussels. Is that unnatural?

I forgotten to add the instinct to my natural definition...
What the otter is doing is natural because it is part of the otter's instinct.

Technically, everything we do is natural. When people use the term nature and natural, they tend to mean 'not man made'. I can sympathize to a point, since I would 10x rather see a forest or the ocean as opposed to ANY man-made "unnatural" structure.

Those structures are 'unnatural' because we made them.

We didn't make the ocean, it's natural. We didn't make the forest, it's natural.

Destroying nature is deemed 'unnatural' even though every species does it to some extent.

I don't think there is anything wrong with being natural or not. A man "destroys" or transforms natural by the use of tools stemming from intelligence, other organisms don't.

Man, however, does it to such a vast extent that it destroys not only natural habitats, but other entire species. And threatens even ourselves. There seems to be a natural cycle of things in the animal kingdom that man is no longer a part of. We come, we kill, we destroy, we dominate. Every animal on this planet has natural enemies (except for maybe sharks). There is something that feeds on every species. There is something every species feeds on. But it all balances itself out. Until you add mankind. We are the natural enemy of *everything*, and we have no natural enemies ourselves.

We are also one of only two animals who are known to kill solely for pleasure.

And the other animal that kills for pleasure is? You might notice that an animal killing for pleasure is part of its instinct while for humans killing for pleasure is part of intelligence.

Is it all unnatural? Nah, I don't guess so. Since it's present in nature, it must therefore be natural.

Even aliens would be natural, as they would be part of our natural universe.

As for the otters, they'll use rocks (tools), but it isn't a result of intelligence. Most otters would use rocks as tools in the same way, whether they see other otters do it or not. One human however learns how to make fire and the knowledge of how to do so is passed on to other humans. Without the knowledge being passed on, only a small amount of humans would spontaneously create fire. I'm to tired to explain this, I guess I'll do so later.

 

[rivrrat]

I forgotten to add the instinct to my natural definition...
What the otter is doing is natural because it is part of the otter's instinct.

It's instinct is to eat. It's instinct is not to bash things with rocks in the hopes that there's something yummy inside. They hit mussels, urchins, clams, etc specifically because they know there's something they want in them, and because they know the rocks will get the job done.

I don't think there is anything wrong with being natural or not. A man "destroys" or transforms natural by the use of tools stemming from intelligence, other organisms don't.

Whether I disagree or not, are you saying that intelligence is 'unnatural'?

And the other animal that kills for pleasure is? You might notice that an animal killing for pleasure is part of its instinct while for humans killing for pleasure is part of intelligence.

Dolphins. And no, killing for pleasure isn't instinctual. The fact that dolphins both have sex and kill purely for pleasure is actually (supposedly) a testament to their intelligence.

As for the otters, they'll use rocks (tools), but it isn't a result of intelligence. Most otters would use rocks as tools in the same way, whether they see other otters do it or not. One human however learns how to make fire and the knowledge of how to do so is passed on to other humans. Without the knowledge being passed on, only a small amount of humans would spontaneously create fire. I'm to tired to explain this, I guess I'll do so later.

1) Other animals teach one another things as well
2) Reasoning out how to open something that's hard shelled is a sign of intelligence and logical thinking. Not all otters engage in this behavior, especially since not all otters eat shell fish.

 

[WI Crippler]

Part of the reason that the idea of this thread popped into my mind, is because we constantly hear about how mankind can now destroy the world. Whether it be Global Warming, Nuclear War etc....
But on the same token, mankind is now able to somewhat protect the earth from cataclysmic events like asteroids/comets hitting the planet, reworking the environments that get destroyed so that they are habitable for animals again (Ducks Unlimited does this alot).
Alot of people want us to stop "hurting" the planet, which infers that we regress to a point of being pure hunter/gatherers again, which is anti-evolutionary IMO. I just wonder, if people feel we don't have the right, as the dominant species on the planet, to do with the Earth as we choose, then do we have the right to travel to other planets/moons and exploit their resources for our gain??
Eventually we will have to, since this planet will not last forever, especially if the Sun goes apeshit on us.

 

[Voidwar]

The word "natural" doesn't mean anything.
The easy way to prove this to yourself is to point to something unnatural.
When you realize that you can't, you realize that EVERYTHING is "natural", and thus the word carries almost no meaning. It functionally means the same as "existant".

Nature made man and termites and birds.
Man made a building, a termite made a mound and birds make nests.
All six are native, and objectively the same.
The mound is just as Natural as the nest and the building.
Man is "Natural" and so are his works. The meaningless word "natural" is really just a wedge, trying to imply a division where none exists.

 

[Voidwar]

We are also one of only two animals who are known to kill solely for pleasure.

Do you mean inter-species or within species ?

 

[WI Crippler]

The word "natural" doesn't mean anything.
The easy way to prove this to yourself is to point to something unnatural.
When you realize that you can't, you realize that EVERYTHING is "natural", and thus the word carries almost no meaning. It functionally means the same as "existant".

Nature made man and termites and birds.
Man made a building, a termite made a mound and birds make nests.
All six are native, and objectively the same.
The mound is just as Natural as the nest and the building.
Man is "Natural" and so are his works. The meaningless word "natural" is really just a wedge, trying to imply a division where none exists.

This is kind of what my train of thought is. Thanks for stating it so simply....

 

[Voidwar]

There is something that feeds on every species. There is something every species feeds on. But it all balances itself out. Until you add mankind. We are the natural enemy of *everything*, and we have no natural enemies ourselves.

dust mites living in your pillow by the millions, eating your dead skin and hair

 

[rivrrat]

Part of the reason that the idea of this thread popped into my mind, is because we constantly hear about how mankind can now destroy the world. Whether it be Global Warming, Nuclear War etc....
But on the same token, mankind is now able to somewhat protect the earth from cataclysmic events like asteroids/comets hitting the planet, reworking the environments that get destroyed so that they are habitable for animals again (Ducks Unlimited does this alot).
Alot of people want us to stop "hurting" the planet, which infers that we regress to a point of being pure hunter/gatherers again, which is anti-evolutionary IMO. I just wonder, if people feel we don't have the right, as the dominant species on the planet, to do with the Earth as we choose, then do we have the right to travel to other planets/moons and exploit their resources for our gain??
Eventually we will have to, since this planet will not last forever, especially if the Sun goes apeshit on us.

Ahhh... so it's really kind of more about 'rights' and possibly morality.

As I said, I think anything that exists is natural. I have used the term 'unnatural' before, but I use the term loosely. Like... I may refer to a psychopathic maniac murderer as 'unnatural', but in reality, they're natural because they exist in nature. They are rare, but still... 'natural'. A mutation, perhaps.

As for turning back evolution to help save the planet... well... I'd prefer to be a hunter/gatherer and live out in the woods, personally. But that's just me. I don't expect anyone else to feel the same. LOL

Should we be concerned about the destruction of our planet? Uhhh... well, if we want our future generations to continue living here, yeah... we should be concerned - to a degree. Thing is, we are but specks of sand in this vast universe. To think we have the power to destroy an entire planet is.... incredibly arrogant. We have the power to affect the environment in such a way that it negatively affects US and other species... but destroy the planet? Pffffttt... pahlease. We're just a speck of sand. We may eventually cause our own demise, or severely limit our own numbers, but the planet itself will live on.

As for utilizing other planets resources... do we have the 'right'? Of course we do, right up until another lifeform bitch-slaps us back to earth. If none do, then no problem. But again, I find it incredibly arrogant to assume that we mere specks of sand in this universe are the most superior creatures in it, or that we're alone in the universe.

So sure, let's use whatever resources we can on other planets. Let's head to other galaxies and use theirs too. Eventually, I believe we'll run into more life forms and our evolution will take a giant leap.

 

[Voidwar]

This is kind of what my train of thought is. Thanks for stating it so simply....

No problem, I completely identified with what you were saying.
I had come to same conclusion long ago, so I have had some practice at putting it into words

 

[rivrrat]

dust mites living in your pillow by the millions, eating your dead skin and hair

I don't really consider dust mites a natural enemy. They don't systematically kill humans for food.

Every animal feeds on something. Everything carnivorous kills another animal(s) to survive. There is no known animal that systematically kills humans to survive. We're a bit higher up on the food chain.

 

[Voidwar]

As for turning back evolution to help save the planet... well... I'd prefer to be a hunter/gatherer and live out in the woods, personally. But that's just me. I don't expect anyone else to feel the same. LOL

Living in a hunter-gatherer society was a short brutal trial.
Average lifespan of 40 and no dentists.
Infant mortality 50% in the first year.
It was not the idyllic disney movie many envision.

 

[rivrrat]

Living in a hunter-gatherer society was a short brutal trial.
Average lifespan of 40 and no dentists.
Infant mortality 50% in the first year.
It was not the idyllic disney movie many envision.

Seeing as though I lived in a tent in the woods for the better part of 10 years, I do have some idea. I'd still prefer it. I was actually much healthier THEN.

 

[WI Crippler]

As for turning back evolution to help save the planet... well... I'd prefer to be a hunter/gatherer and live out in the woods, personally. But that's just me. I don't expect anyone else to feel the same. LOL

The issue I see with regressing back to a hunter gatherer society is that, one our planet does not have the resources to feed us without agriculture, which invariably has an effect on nature. Sure this would go a long way in killing off the weak, and creating a stronger bloodline which would just lead us back to this point eventually.

Should we be concerned about the destruction of our planet? Uhhh... well, if we want our future generations to continue living here, yeah... we should be concerned - to a degree. Thing is, we are but specks of sand in this vast universe. To think we have the power to destroy an entire planet is.... incredibly arrogant. We have the power to affect the environment in such a way that it negatively affects US and other species... but destroy the planet? Pffffttt... pahlease. We're just a speck of sand. We may eventually cause our own demise, or severely limit our own numbers, but the planet itself will live on.

The planet will eventually be destroyed, by our hand or the suns eventually. I would prefer the thought that we exploited our resources to move our species into the frontiers of space, over the thought of us being wiped clean and just another extinct species lost in the tides of time because we feared our impact on a planet that will not be eternal.

As for utilizing other planets resources... do we have the 'right'? Of course we do, right up until another lifeform bitch-slaps us back to earth. If none do, then no problem. But again, I find it incredibly arrogant to assume that we mere specks of sand in this universe are the most superior creatures in it, or that we're alone in the universe.
So sure, let's use whatever resources we can on other planets. Let's head to other galaxies and use theirs too. Eventually, I believe we'll run into more life forms and our evolution will take a giant leap.

If we have the right to utilize other planets resources for our own need, then we have a right to utilize this planet we live on now as well. The earth is not the center of its own solar system, galaxy, or universe. The earths importance on the universal scale is miniscule at best. It is humbling to think about how unimportant we really are right now, in the grand scheme of the universe.

 

[talloulou]

I was thinking about something while on the crapper the other night ( where all great thoughts are formulated ).

There seems to be this wording of how humans interact with nature. You always hear the words about how "unnatural" something is, in regards to human elements affecting nature. Whether its GW, or turning swampland into a golf course, or the foods we eat people are always critical of the human being as being unnatural, or a negative impactor to our world.

Are we not, at the most basic atomic levels, made from the same stuff as everything else? Is not our evolution completely due to the forces to nature, and therefor our current state "natural". We use elements that exist in nature to our advantage.

Why are we demonizing ourselves and our impact as being unnatural, when we are indeed natural??

When you no longer live a hand to mouth existance with all energy put towards merely surviving you have ample amount of time to reflect upon choices. And humans reign supreme on the planet. Thus we are the stewards and being in charge so to speak makes us "responsible" and thus held accountable for our actions and what comes of them. Doesn't make us unnatural so much as it makes more than "mindless biology" attempting to survive. We operate based on so much more than mere instinct. And we are probably the one species that could destroy the planet completey if we so desired. So we're not unnatural so much as we are potentially dangerous! :mrgreen: However we also could potentially save the planet from something like getting hit with a huge rock from outer space.