[gluontheferengi]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
are held up as the ultimate sacred standards yet should they be? Why should we revere the natural order of things?

‘Because it is natural’ we usually reason circularly. What’s so great about being natural?

All that matters in nature is whether we succeed in passing on our genes. Whatever function serves that purpose gets passed down. If people with chronic excruciating pain all over their bodies reproduced more than other people, then each successive generation of humanity would become progressively more prone to chronic pain.

Our enjoyment and fulfillment in life are inconsequential in the balance of nature. Fullness of life and lifespan only matters so long as it results in more surviving offspring who in turn succeed in reproducing.

[MysteriousGnome]

To me everything is natural by definition. I do not see the logic in excluding the human species and what it does from nature. Why not exclude viruses instead for example?

[gluontheferengi]

Yet most people hold aloft romantic ideas of nature and 'the natural order.'

Observe how an environmentalist for example distinguishes sharply between humans, 'man-made' and nature.

And of human nature, observe how our culture pretty much assumes that there is something noble and worthy in the human condition itself.

Observe how even the creators of Star Trek enthusiastically condone engineering FTL spaceships yet condemn the engineering of people and societies.

[rufsketch1]

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

Yet most people hold aloft romantic ideas of nature and 'the natural order.' Observe how an environmentalist for example distinguishes sharply between humans, 'man-made' and nature. And of human nature, observe how our culture pretty much assumes that there is something noble and worthy in the human condition itself. Observe how even the creators of Star Trek enthusiastically condone engineering FTL spaceships yet condemn the engineering of people and societies.

I don't think most people are environmentalists.

I do think most people just cite "The Natural Order" whenever they can't rationally justify why they are averse to doing (or no longer doing) something. Appeal to tradition and whatnot.

[Thinker]

I am an environmentalist....a tree hugging, whale loving, lover of nature.

Humans live in a complex set of systems which we like to call the natural world. We are part of the natural world....but we have a significant impact on the rest of our living planet and this is why in some sense we (humans) are seen as separate from nature.....We are obviously not different by definition....but set ourselves apart due to our significant impact.

We have interdependencies in the natural world, we don't even know about, they are so subtle. My love of nature is based on the realisation that we rely on the cycles of nature for our own existence, now, and into the future.

I don't believe the "Natural Order" is sacrosanct, but I also don't trust humans to make good decisions about advancement and sustainability of the human race 100% of the time. I believe environmentalism is necessary to keep a better balance between advancement and sustainability (of the human race).

[gluontheferengi]

Environmentalists and Star Trek are just two tiny examples.

Most of our cultural and societal institutions assume exactly these kinds of romantic beliefs on an axiomatic level.
This is why I brought up this question at an early stage in my blog. To establish a new foundation to build on.

Consider how it is considered perfectly acceptable to think scientifically in order to invent machines but not about inventing new systems of organizing people to better invent machines.

Same idea with engineering human nature itself or with exploring the nature of consciousness with the intent of developing mental disciplines into functional technologies(think mentats).

All of these restraints are rooted in the sentimental idea of a 'natural order' that should not be violated.(Most horror and sci-fi since Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein)

Humans seem to tacitly agree not to touch certain potential areas of development because we deeply fear losing the inevitable struggles for power and getting screwed.( i.e. We let parents raise their kids in ways we don't approve of because we fear our own children being taken away)

However, as certain technologies mature, the temptations presented to certain powers that be will be too great to endure.
And because ethically constrained people stayed their hands when they still had a chance, the most powerful and ruthless will be those making the big decisions as usual...

We can still kind of ignore these questions, but we'd be wise to at least consider them.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by gluontheferengi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Our enjoyment and fulfillment in life are inconsequential in the balance of nature. Fullness of life and lifespan only matters so long as it results in more surviving offspring who in turn succeed in reproducing.

The latter is as trivial as the former in "Nature".

You've just supplied two different human definitions.

[AlfredSchnittke]

	Originally Posted by MysteriousGnome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To me everything is natural by definition. I do not see the logic in excluding the human species and what it does from nature. Why not exclude viruses instead for example?

I completely agree.

To my mind anything that exists is "natural".

I don't really get the artificial distinction...

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by gluontheferengi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	All that matters in nature is whether we succeed in passing on our genes. Whatever function serves that purpose gets passed down.

If that were true, then why did evolution craft beings capable of asking these questions? How does this question help you pass on your genes?

[thod]

The question of what is real is one of asking does it accord with nature. A dropped stone fall down and never up. Thus nature gives us a reference point, the only one we have.

[Kisai]

I'm sure the dinosaurs thought they were the pinnacle of existence and Nature would take care of their idyllic lives.