[ptrout]

In light of earthday, I ask the question, is anything we do unnatural. We are all part of the eco-system, and we as humans do what comes naturally to us. The climate system will adapt to the impact of humans, which is the natural process. The results may or may not be good in our narrow self preservation POV but does it make it unnatural?

[Synchronicity]

Good question. I'd like to ask it myself. I hear people use the words natural and unnatural all the time, but I never really understood the distinction. When does something cease to be natural and become unnatural?

[Chibi]

If human actions are somehow 'altering' or 'changing' the path that the earth would 'naturally' take. Then yes, its fair to say that its unnatural.

[Synchronicity]

But why? Humans are products of nature. Everything we do is based upon our natural behavior. At what point are we exerting an "unnatural" influence on the world?

[ptrout]

	Originally Posted by Chibi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If human actions are somehow 'altering' or 'changing' the path that the earth would 'naturally' take. Then yes, its fair to say that its unnatural.

Why make the distinction between human actions vs any other organism on Earth. Lion kills a gazelle we no don't question if that lion has just altered the path of nature. We are not distinct nor separate from the eco-system. The humans action and its impact ARE the natural course of event Earth would take. If you disagree present a case of this alternate path.

[Stratego]

Good question.

I think you're right, too--anything we do, including making bad choices and dumb mistakes, is part of our essential nature. But it is also part of our nature question our actions, and their consequences, and to want to preserve our way of life, our comfort, happiness, and prosperity and pass this along to our progeny (or at the very least, future humanity).

So it's not like Earth has to just suck it up as we go about our merry way polluting, dumping, and using finite materials as if they will never run out--we've seen the consequences of such behavior and we know what will result. If we have a moral sense at all then we know that we're obligated to act against our nature in this instance, to make sacrifices that will pay out in the long run.

[Tristan]

I think that in coming Earth Days, we should open up hostilities against the element Iridium. Iridium is pretty much only found in the sediments of meteorites, making it an anathema to everything we would consider earthly, Gaian, "natural." As stellar debris, Iridium plays no part in the environment. Fucking asteroids come from God-knows-where, hit our planet (pulverizing innocent, furry little animals I might add), and spread scary substances like Iridium across the surface. Iridium is basically the black ship on our horizon; it represents the looming threat, the alien darkness which thwarts all human understanding.

Next Earth Day, stand for Earth. Stand against Iridium. Buy some Iridium at ~$400/tr.oz. and attempt to destroy or corrode it with friendlier, earthier compounds like molten potassium cyanide. In this way you can send a strong message to the cosmos that you stand ready to protect Mother Earth, no matter the perils.

[Hfrog1999]

Absolutely, humans are as much a part of nature as any other living organism. Our altering of the environment is no more unnatural than an ant mound or grazing cattle.

Being the most intelligent beings on the planet, we should manage our resources effectively for the benefit of our own species.

I also strongly believe we need to develop systems to eventually colonize other planets and use their resources as well. We should be growth oriented, it's a big universe.

[Tsukasa]

I find it unnatural to celebrate and teach good stewardship of the Earth on only one day, and turn around and forget what happened yesterday. An exercise in futility and pomp and ceremony: that's how I would describe such a thing.

[John F Kennedy]

	Originally Posted by Stratego To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If we have a moral sense at all then we know that we're obligated to act against our nature in this instance, to make sacrifices that will pay out in the long run.

You're creating a circular argument here by claiming that we are acting according to nature when we pollute, and that we should act against our nature to stop polluting. Isn't the latter part of our nature as well (to make reasoned actions)? The question is whether we can act against "nature" or against our nature at all.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by ptrout To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why make the distinction between human actions vs any other organism on Earth. Lion kills a gazelle we no don't question if that lion has just altered the path of nature. We are not distinct nor separate from the eco-system. The humans action and its impact ARE the natural course of event Earth would take. If you disagree present a case of this alternate path.

"Eco-system" implies a natural (or organic, having very gradually come into existence) order or balance between a variety of organisms, where no one type of organism fundamentally and consciously interferes with the affairs of other organisms. We are certainly on this world, came into existence here and probably never left it, so it's hard not to think of humans as "natural"*, but if I go outside and look around me at this moment, all I see is humans. Here and there are some planted trees and bushes, there may be some birds in the air and occasionally I might see a constricted dog being led by a human, but what I see in front of me is human territory essentially off-limits for other animals. Since a great majority of land on this planet (which, for all intents and purposes to all terrestrial species but one, is all the land that exists) has been appropriated by humans, how can one speak of an ecosystem?

An ecosystem is a state of affairs where a variety of organisms has come into existence side-by-side, complimentarily, symbiotically. There are certainly plenty of ecosystems of varying shapes and sizes in existence today, but only in areas we call "untamed", places we haven't found ways to appropriate fully yet, like big oceans, and in monitored recreational areas that are meant to give the impression of being "natural". For the most part, though, any nonhuman organisms in existence today exist because we either let them or can't control them.

(*An utterly vague term in this context, as every single thing on this planet can be called "natural". Congrats, humans are natural.)

(ps. To say "we are the natural course this planet would take" is utter nonsense. The current state of affairs is just what happened, there is no need for other, contrived formulations. The way you say it, it seems as if "we" are a category that deserves special attention and that "this planet" is some kind of actor.)

(pps. It's interesting to think about human behavior at the time humans were still fully part of ecosystems, the very mechanisms that allowed them to come into existence and without which there would be no contemporary man. Anyone whose interest is piqued by that notion might want to check out Daniel Quinn's Ishmael, a book exploring the topic.)


This makes my post less pretty, but I can't resist.

	Originally Posted by Hfrog1999 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Absolutely, humans are as much a part of nature as any other living organism. Our altering of the environment is no more unnatural than an ant mound or grazing cattle.

Think again; there is a fundamental difference. (Ants and cows, outside of those appropriated by humans, existing within ecosystems.)

	Originally Posted by Hfrog1999 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Being the most intelligent beings on the planet, we should manage our resources effectively for the benefit of our own species.

Is/ought fallacy.

[Stratego]

	Originally Posted by John F Kennedy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're creating a circular argument here by claiming that we are acting according to nature when we pollute, and that we should act against our nature to stop polluting. Isn't the latter part of our nature as well (to make reasoned actions)? The question is whether we can act against "nature" or against our nature at all.

You're right, it is circular in a sense--that's if you believe that making "reasoned actions" is part of our essential , or most basic nature. I don't. I agree with Maslow's ideas when it comes to human motivation/actions.

What I mean is: I know we're intelligent, rational beings for the most part, but that is the veneer we assume when all our most basic needs are met--food, shelter, protection. To most people in a developed country, the "threat" of bad practices and wasteful use of finite resources is not seen as an immediate threat to their comfort, so they will pursue any means to their end, i.e. profit, instead of giving a damn about what their actions may entail for the future.

[John F Kennedy]

I heard that some academics call this the "Human Era", Zibber.

[dalidaisy]

Well, there's nature (as in human nature) & then there's nature (natural, of the earth). Gotta love the English language...

Humans are so self-involved. The basic "nature" of humans? The world isn't using you, you are using it (& rarely give back, I might add).

Ok, I have no point. Continue...

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by John F Kennedy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I heard that some academics call this the "Human Era", Zibber.

Well, that's clear enough
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Let's go with the Age of Opportunism, though.

[John F Kennedy]

Zibber, the problem with your definition of "natural"/"unnatural" (based on the idea of balance/imbalance) is that it is very fluid. To you the Earth's state might seem natural before the hegemony of humans, but to someone the preponderance of plants in that era might seem unnatural or imbalanced. Plus what as a whole might seem a natural balance is really a sum of local imbalances. For example the Sahara desert seems like a very unnatural unbalanced state. And what about the preponderance of certain types of trees in the rainforest? I'm sure it excluded other species of trees through its "hegemony". Oceans are an example of "water hegemony".

[zibber]

Originally Posted by John F Kennedy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Zibber, the problem with your definition of "natural"/"unnatural" (based on the idea of balance/imbalance) is that it is very fluid. To you the Earth's state might seem natural before the hegemony of humans, but to someone the preponderance of plants in that era might seem unnatural or imbalanced. Plus what as a whole might seem a natural balance is really a sum of local imbalances. For example the Sahara desert seems like a very unnatural unbalanced state. And what about the preponderance of certain types of trees in the rainforest? I'm sure it excluded other species of trees through its "hegemony". Oceans are an example of "water hegemony".

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I think it's clear enough, though, that the advent of this "Human Era" is something new. Your argument seems to be that everything is basically natural and it is impossible to indicate a fundamental difference between one state of affairs and another, but this current modus operandi of (the majority of) human beings seems to have broken with the modus operandi that was predominant among the "original" homo s. sapiens. The parasitic lifestyle most humans (automatically) seem to follow in this period principally prevents any other kind of organism from existing and developing apart from human interests. In other words, again, humans have appropriated Earth to the best of their ability and if there is any other form of life there, it exists only because humans let it. I don't think anything is fundamentally "unnatural", as the term "natural" is simply open to interpretation, but if I were to use that term, the modus operandi currently predominant in the human population would be a prime candidate.

Obviously, this is also to a great extent a matter of personal preference. I prefer not to act like the king of all I survey. I prefer to take what I need and leave the rest. I prefer not to act as if my life were a race to accumulate as much of a surplus as I can. I prefer not to act as though I possessed the Earth, knowing that I would not have existed if things hadn't gone the way they did for so many millions of years. I prefer to behave as if I were an animal rather than something fundamentally different. I cannot force anyone to reject the (implicit) notion that human beings own Earth, because there isn't, never has been and never will be something like Absolute Truth. (This also becomes painfully clear during debates about (nonhuman) "animal rights".) I sure do think I have a pretty well thought out reason to express my distaste with this state of affairs, though.

(Do you at least see why the (very funny!) water hegemony comparison is a bit unfair? Water is just there. It isn't even a most basic form of life, just a kind of molecule. You'd have done much better with a virus comparison, which would have actually supported my point in a way
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

[John F Kennedy]

Zibber: Well, I was mostly playing devil's advocate because your definition wasn't quite satisfying for me, but I agree with the spirit of what you're saying.

(Funny thing: a movie just came on TV, and it is titled "Devil's Advocate".)

I would say that if anything is unnatural about humans then it is culture and civilization, which are brought on by crossing and continuing past a certain threshold in intelligence, mostly having to do with toolmaking. You can see that in aesthetics of art, a lot of the discourse has to do with imitation or mimesis, which is because art finds itself separate from life and nature (it's on the imitating side). Hence my interest in art and religion that tries to make its way back to being in unity with life and nature (happenings, found objects, Zen, performance, ecological movements in art and music, mysticism).

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by John F Kennedy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Zibber: Well, I was mostly playing devil's advocate because your definition wasn't quite satisfying for me, but I agree with the spirit of what you're saying.

I suspected as much; I appreciate the criticism!

Originally Posted by John F Kennedy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I would say that if anything is unnatural about humans then it is culture and civilization, which are brought on by crossing and continuing past a certain threshold in intelligence, mostly having to do with toolmaking. You can see that in aesthetics of art, a lot of the discourse has to do with imitation or mimesis, which is because art finds itself separate from life and nature (it's on the imitating side). Hence my interest in art and religion that tries to make its way back to being in unity with life and nature (happenings, found objects, Zen, performance, ecological movements in art and music, mysticism).

True. It's the same in philosophy. For some reason humans have always assumed a kind of dualism (of mind/body as well as) of man/world, from Platonic formal idealism to Kant's transcendental idealism; it's always nice when that gets questioned. The biggest critics seem to have been the German Romantics, calling for the kind of art/mythology you described. Unfortunately, most of the ensuing art I know of is hard-to-get-into poetry and rather classical painting. One exception for me is CD Friedrich and his sublime landscapes (always containing a human element). I also like Heidegger's aesthetics, his contention that art and religion can bring about a sort of unity between Earth (the realm of human affairs) and World (all else; that which is otherwise inaccessible to us).

My knowledge of more contemporary projects is limited, though. Can you recommend some stuff? (I'm vaguely reminded of artists like Beuys and Smithson.)

[DanteFalling]

	Originally Posted by Synchronicity To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Good question. I'd like to ask it myself. I hear people use the words natural and unnatural all the time, but I never really understood the distinction. When does something cease to be natural and become unnatural?

LOL. I had the biggest problem with this distinction as a child. I asked my mother what the term "artificial ingredients" meant. How could something be artificial?
I never got over that lexical problem.

It wasn't until I realized certain chemicals were replicated in labs and some items were substituted for others they resembled in some way that I was able to realize that "artificial" ingredients most often meant those ingredients which were composed of one thing but used as another.

[John F Kennedy]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My knowledge of more contemporary projects is limited, though. Can you recommend some stuff? (I'm vaguely reminded of artists like Beuys and Smithson.)

Duchamp, John Cage (music, sound art, and happening inspired partly by Zen), R. Murray Schafer (acoustic ecology - fascinating book: "The Tuning of the World", 1977), Joseph Beuys, Allan Kaprow (happening), Fluxus, Oldenburg.

[Brittle]

	...is anything unnatural ?

Michael Jackson's face.


...I rest my case


<..takes a bow..>

[dogwoodlover]

LOL @ Brittle.

	Originally Posted by Synchronicity To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But why? Humans are products of nature. Everything we do is based upon our natural behavior. At what point are we exerting an "unnatural" influence on the world?

Just wanted to point out that your definition is too broad; by this reasoning, *everything* is natural, and nothing is unnatural, which renders both terms meaningless. If you carry your logic, atomic weapons are just as natural as oak trees.

That is all.

[ptrout]

	Originally Posted by dogwoodlover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	LOL @ Brittle. Just wanted to point out that your definition is too broad; by this reasoning, *everything* is natural, and nothing is unnatural, which renders both terms meaningless. If you carry your logic, atomic weapons are just as natural as oak trees. That is all.

Lets use yours, how would you make the distinction between atomic weapons and oak trees. Both are result of systems, adapting to the needs and its current environment, be it organic, political or social.

Back to the original idea of sorts, and speaking in a strictly layman's terms; When they refer to the current state of humanity influence as being unnatural, it denotes a sense of incorrectness. As if they were are arguing 2+3 =/= 6. It is supposed to be 5, and we did something wrong in our calculations along the way. The logic of their argument makes perfect sense to me, the premise however does not. Unlike a math problem, I don't think (just a personal view) we have any definitive answers. While I completely agree we are destroying the the eco-system, and out actions in the long run self destructive, I have no sense that, that is the wrong answer.

[Synchronicity]

	Originally Posted by dogwoodlover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just wanted to point out that your definition is too broad; by this reasoning, *everything* is natural, and nothing is unnatural, which renders both terms meaningless. If you carry your logic, atomic weapons are just as natural as oak trees. That is all.

That's exactly my point. If "unnatural" is to mean anything, we need to be able to define the point at which something ceases to be natural, but so far I haven't seen it happen. Although it makes perfect sense, intuitively, that atomic weapons are less natural than oak trees, can we say why?