this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
55 points (92.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43851 readers
1418 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The issue is that many people don't consider humans as part of the natural world.
Which is a ridiculous concept to me.
A beaver dam is a natural as the hoover dam. Both represent a species altering the environment for their benefit.
It's kind of a pseudo-religious idea, the whole 'natural is good and humans are not natural'.. Gaia is good, humans have sin, humans are made separate and rule over nature and are therefore not part of 'nature,' God's creation is perfect, all those ideas seem to have been merged into the dichotomy: there is nature and there is humanity.
The problem is just that if "natural" doesn't mean "not made by humans" then it doesn't really mean anything at all. If the things people made are natural, what's excluded by using the word, exactly?
The supernatural
And the subnatural!
Walking through the health food aisle like "thank God I finally found some ghost-free food!"
AngryUpvote
I concur. My gut is telling me there is a difference, but when I try to articulate it, I can’t.
Kind of like that senator who couldn’t define pornography, but her know it when he sees it.
Maybe a degree of refinement?
Definitely refinement.
Man used to build 'natural' tools and shelters and some still do in the most remote parts of the planet. Mud huts and arrowheads are man-made yet also natural. I think we left the 'natural' path when we started smelting, domesticating, tanning, irrigating, etc. We took naturally formed materials and refined or processed them into something you can't just stunble upon in nature. A billion planets in a billion years will not naturally produce an internal combustion engine without some sort of intelligent intervention.
Yes. Humans were born out of this universe just like everything else. It's all nature. Even free will gets fuzzy when psychologists look into it. Some might say people have just as much free as a river that "chooses" its course and then fabricate a story after the fact about how they chose this or that, ignorant to external and internal (brain) influences. And then it starts to get fuzzy what's internal and what's external. Our brain is a part of the external world, and the external world we study is built by our subjective perceptions.
To me bird nests and beaver dams are made with natural materials found in nature, and with little or no manufacturing and refinement. Think of all that human building materials go through during the manufacturing process. Yes the materials ultimately come from the Earth but then go through many refinement processes and assembly steps, and I think each step moves it farther from natural. You don't see shingles and sheet rock laying around in a forest, those things are not natural.