What means the most to you in life?

[mrnoodle]

Ok, I'm losing track with all the quotes and quotes-of-quotes, so some housekeeping:

(1) By "nature" I do mean "not created by man". But it's just a handy term that most people can relate to. The semantics are getting a little hairy, though.

(2) I don't feel attacked, I'm having a ball.

(3) De-evolution was supposed to mean something, and for the life of me I can't remember what. I think change/progress fits best.

(4) There's lots of prolific organisms that are fragile. Our capacity to self-destruct is still notable. But I guess my point was [holedigging]we are more at risk of being destroyed by the world than we are at destroying it[/holedigging]

(5) city-seeds. lol

[juju]

Originally posted by wolf
Oxygen is natural because it "comes" that way ... two molecules of O, stuck to each other. It's not FORCED into that configuration by photosynthesis.

Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and then convert it to oxygen. How are they not the direct cause? If oxygen "comes" that way, then how come it was a completely different thing before the plant acted on it?

Oh, I see. Because it wasn't <i>humans</i> doing the changing. I see your bias.

Originally posted by wolf
Consider ... Uranium, naturally occuring element.

Plutonium ... only exists because man tosses additional neutrons in Uranium's general direction which are absorbed by the nucleus, creating this new artificial element.

SO? Man is a part of nature. Uranium is a part of nature. Rearrange the elements, and it is still made up of things that come from nature, and was acted on by a being that is of nature.

Originally posted by wolf
When Uncle DuPey uses an assortment of hydrocarbons to make paint and plastic and a myriad of other things that make living better, that's chemistry ... and while the components are organic molecules, it's not natural, dammit!!

Yes it is. Man didn't create chemistry. It's just principles he's observed in nature. Taking advantage of the rules of nature doesn't corrupt anything.

[mrnoodle]

Dammit. juju wins the nature-vs-people thing. I hate getting converted.

Fuck.

At least it doesn't derail my cute little hunting manifesto. So there.

[wolf]

New Jersey's opinion may differ on that "corruption" thing ...

[juju]

Originally posted by mrnoodle
Ok, I'm losing track with all the quotes and quotes-of-quotes, so some housekeeping:

Sorry about that. :) I thought I'd try the ol' replying-to-two-people-in-one-post thing. Now I remember why I don't do that.

(1) Of course the semantics are getting hairy. That's the logic behind the concept crumbling. :)

(2)That's good. I just clarify becase many sometimes I don't know when I'm being an asshole.

(3)Well, in that case, progress is a matter of opinion, isn't it?



[edit: removed evil, evil, evil graphical smilies.]

[Torrere]

juju:
define "natural"
define "nature"
define "artificial"

I stand by mrnoodle's comment.

Humans are a part of nature. However, we're special, because all of the people talking about humans are.. humans. We get to distinguish between things made by humans and things not made by humans because we are humans. I think that anyone who has spent a week in the woods followed by a week in the heart of a city would say that we need a set of words to describe the difference.

Artificial and natural are among those words.

Do you want the language to create new and more neutral words than the Romantics used?

[Shattered Soul]

I understood what you meant by "nature," and "natural," and I'm sure that everyone else did, too. I think that juju was just picking nits.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Nits are like cockroaches, if somebody doesn't pick 'em, they take over. Way to go Juju.

[Lady Sidhe]

I think that mankind is probably the only animal on the planet that doesn't actually have a niche. We could be obliterated, and the world would just go on merrily without us; kill off certain species of insects, however, and the food production would go all to hell. Mankind really doesn't serve a purpose, as most other creatures do.

I'm not implying that mankind is evil in and of itself, only that we tend to use up our resources rather than preserve them by using them wisely, hunt species to extinction for luxuries, and generally do a crappy job in the stewardship of the earth. We seem to believe that because we're human, and therefore "superior," that that gives us license to rape, plunder, and pillage unchecked, without considering the future.

And I kind of agree with the idea that we're a threat to ourselves. People kill people for a pair of tennis shoes. Animals don't generally kill for no purpose (although, yes, a male lion who takes over a pride WILL kill off the cubs of the previous leader, it isn't something that happens all the time), but for food or in self-defense. Animals don't generally pollute their environment so that it becomes a health hazard.

And by "animals," I mean, specifically, "non-human, non-mechanical, living beings, up to and including insects, invertebrates, fish, and avians."

Human beings more resemble viruses, in that they tend to harm or destroy the host (rather than a symbiote, which lives in harmony while using it's host, and sometimes benefits the host as well).


Oh, and to answer the original thread:

My family. That's it. My little girl and my husband.



Sidhe

[Shattered Soul]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Nits are like cockroaches, if somebody doesn't pick 'em, they take over. Way to go Juju.

So are you saying that keeping nits from morphing into cockroaches and taking over the kitchen of life is juju's reason for living?

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, Juju just does nits. They don't morph. Everybody is on their own when it comes to roaches

[Torrere]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I think that mankind is probably the only animal on the planet that doesn't actually have a niche. We could be obliterated, and the world would just go on merrily without us; kill off certain species of insects, however, and the food production would go all to hell.

And you are wrong.

When creatures depend upon other creatures for their survival, it is because they have adapted to their environment which is altered by that creature. We humans are a part of nature and the others animals have evolved and continue to evolve around us.

If all humans beings disappeared in an instant (like the 'rapture' of Christian fantasy), the world would be vastly different. Hundreds to thousands of species would find their environments altered. They would die off and adapt to our absence. If the removal of certain insects would leave more species unsupported, it's only because they've been there longer and more species have had the opportunity to evolve to take advantage of them.

Do you have a family of sparrows making their nest in the eaves of your house?

[Shattered Soul]

Originally posted by Torrere


And you are wrong.

When creatures depend upon other creatures for their survival, it is because they have adapted to their environment which is altered by that creature. We humans are a part of nature and the others animals have evolved and continue to evolve around us.

If all humans beings disappeared in an instant (like the 'rapture' of Christian fantasy), the world would be vastly different. Hundreds to thousands of species would find their environments altered. They would die off and adapt to our absence.

Do you have a family of sparrows making their nest in the eaves of your house?

Nope. No sparrows. I have dragonflies, but I post signs warning people not to feed them on pain of ten lashes with a wet noodle. I think they should hunt their own damn food, not depend on me.

I don't think animals depend on us so much as the are forced to adapt TO us. And as we see when places are abandoned, the life around it doesn't die off...it just takes back over.

[elSicomoro]

As long as they keep making Dr. Pepper, life is good.

[juju]

Originally posted by Torrere
Humans are a part of nature. However, we're special, because all of the people talking about humans are.. humans. We get to distinguish between things made by humans and things not made by humans because we are humans.

Humans are special because they're humans? I'm not sure I follow that logic.

Originally posted by Torrere
I think that anyone who has spent a week in the woods followed by a week in the heart of a city would say that we need a set of words to describe the difference.

Artificial and natural are among those words.

Do you want the language to create new and more neutral words than the Romantics used?

Of course, I recognize that there is an an aesthetic difference. But the concept implies much more than that.

I'm not familiar with the Romantics. Could you educate me?

I'm probably not the best person to define those words. I'd go with anyone's definition, as it's not the definition itself but the implications and logic behind the concept that I have a problem with.

I have a problem with the entire concept, because it implies that man is apart from nature, and not a part of it. It implies that we are not an integral part of the ecosystem, which we are. It implies that we somehow defy the laws of nature, which we do not. And lastly, it implies that we are inheretly bad and that everything we touch is corrupted.