+79

When animals make things out of what nature has, it's still considered natural, but when we make something out of what nature has, it's call man-made. What's up with that? We're natural too. //Amirite‽// or Amirite‽

77%Agree23%Disagree
fuzalas avatar Animals & Nature
Share
1 43

Fancy usage of interrobangs/italics/bold text.

Lens avatar Len Agree +8Reply

Humanity is capable of manufacturing tools to refine natural elements far beyond the capabilities of other living things on Earth.

Shadis avatar Shadi Disagree +3Reply
@Shadi Humanity is capable of manufacturing tools to refine natural elements far beyond the capabilities of other living...

but we're doing the same thing
just at a different level

we're doing natural things for the most part

@fuzala but we're doing the same thing just at a different level we're doing natural things for the most part

Animalistic behavior is based on natural instincts. Most things that humans have made were created by critically thinking, going far beyond instinct.

Shadis avatar Shadi Disagree +2Reply
@Shadi Animalistic behavior is based on natural instincts. Most things that humans have made were created by critically...

critical thinking is something that we have naturally
the way a moose can run 35 mph
we can't run that fast
and the moose can't think like us

animals have certain traits that we don't have
sure we can invent thing to emulate it
but it's to an extent
we're all limited

our limits may go a greater distance than animals in some cases
but we're not all the special as POTD says

we are a part of nature
even though we don't always see it like that

and there's varying degrees of thinking between animals
some animals are more "intelligent" than others

We defined the word nature so it doesn't include us.

Think about it.

@AppAwesome We defined the word nature so it doesn't include us. Think about it.

but natural is something we include ourselves in sometimes
like it's natural for us to eat corn
but if I built a nest like a bird
it's still be man-made
and not as natural as a bird making the nest
when I'm taking twigs and emulating the bird

@fuzala but natural is something we include ourselves in sometimes like it's natural for us to eat corn but if I built a...

Stop with your line breaks in random places.

It's not natural for us to eat corn, it's not like the first humans ate it. They had to grow it and yea. But berries are natural because they can be found in nature.

@AppAwesome Stop with your line breaks in random places. It's not natural for us to eat corn, it's not like the first humans...

to your command:
Image in content

what exactly are you disagreeing with though?
I don't see how we're not natural

and I also don't see us as artificial

@fuzala to your command: what exactly are you...

We are not natural because we defined the word natural to not include us...

@AppAwesome We are not natural because we defined the word natural to not include us...

ohhhh
that's one definition
but another is to be the opposite of artificial

@fuzala to your command: what exactly are you...

I like our random line breaks:) haha not very relevant but thought I'd put that out there.

I think natural means that something happens on its own.
So if humans were to make something, it's not natural because it didn't just show up by itself, it was made by us.
But we as humans are natural.

@xxdetroitxx I think natural means that something happens on its own. So if humans were to make something, it's not natural...

the nest didn't build itself
the bird had to do it
yet the nest is still considered natural

flowers don't get pollinated on their own
the bee has to transfer something
still natural

This comment was deleted by its author.
@1911023

But the proccess occured on it's own.
Therefore it's natural.

This comment was deleted by its author.
@1911026

That something that triggered the process happened on it's own

@xxdetroitxx The nest isn't natural But the sticks and twigs that make up the nest are.

the trigger that caused the process was not on it's own
something caused the trigger as well

and we are natural
we don't make ourselves
we're creations

Because animals don't have consciousness equal to ours. Our level of natural is influenced much less by set factors. An animal would see a hostile environment, such as a desert, and say, "I think I'll just live in my forest." A human would say, "You know what? I'm going to bring water in from a bunch of other places, build a ton of shelters, put cold-air-makers in there, and this place will become a centre for entertainment. where people from all over the world will come to have fun"

When animals mess with stuff, it still bears some resemblance to the original stuff. When humans mess with stuff, it's completely unrecognisable.

B10ckH34ds avatar B10ckH34d Disagree +1Reply
@fuzala gotcha looks like I used illogical logic here

Sell out.

Your post is right. It does not matter how "unrecognizable" something is. It is either natural or supernatural. Humans, despite what some of us think, are not above nature. Stick with your creation theory if it helps you. Japan was "unrecognizable" after the tsunami but it was not super natural, it was natural; so is Las Vegas, an ant hill, a spider web, and air pollution - all natural. Humans that think just because we invented the word - or rearranged the world - we are somehow above nature are delusional.

@VicZinc Sell out. Your post is right. It does not matter how "unrecognizable" something is. It is either natural or...

you're right
I am a sell out sad smilie

I am disappointed in myself no smilie

my excuse is that it's late
and I didn't feel like making an argument
so I just gave in
thinking it would be easier to agree

Image in content

FOR SHAME

@VicZinc Sell out. Your post is right. It does not matter how "unrecognizable" something is. It is either natural or...

Maybe unrecognisable was the wrong word. I meant in complete contrast to what was. The difference between natural and unnatural is like the difference between a device that plays really really good music, and a device that plays moderately good music and video. It's not so much advancement along the same path, so much as taking a faster, longer path. What animals do is considered natural because it's just the next level of what is already there. Branches to a nest, still obviously made of a collection of branches, vs a bunch of reddish rocks into a massive steel tower skeleton.

B10ckH34ds avatar B10ckH34d Disagree +1Reply
@B10ckH34d Maybe unrecognisable was the wrong word. I meant in complete contrast to what was. The difference between natural...

Disagree. The "engineering" feat of a spiderweb transforms dead flies into structures humans can only dream of creating. Humans, instead of spinnerets, have hands and brains to transform materials into structures. Our tool-use sets us part from other creatures, but it does not set us out of nature. We are still part of it. Our activities effect the world the same as an animal's does.

You correctly corrected my previous post. But the point is animals can be as transforming as humans re: the environment.

http://www.amirite.com/754851-y...-excrement-now

@VicZinc Disagree. The "engineering" feat of a spiderweb transforms dead flies into structures humans can only dream of...

But a spider uses things produced by it's own body. Our bodies are part of nature, but for the most part, our structures and inventions are made of materials that cannot be made without the conscious intervention of an organism.

A spider's silk and glue are made naturally without it's decision, so that's natural. If a human built something out of branches and various bodily fluids, then that structure would be natural. Bur if a human had to create a new material, ie, steel, plastics, etc, then a structure made of that is unnatural. I consider any tribal structure (igloos, small huts, etc) to be natural because only natural materials were used. An enormous stadium made of mud would not be natural because a lot of engineering knowledge, and presumably steel equipment, is needed to construct it.

I'm not sure if I can convey my idea properly... It seems a lot clearer in my head than in this text.

B10ckH34ds avatar B10ckH34d Disagree +1Reply
@B10ckH34d But a spider uses things produced by it's own body. Our bodies are part of nature, but for the most part, our...

I think I get what you think, but I still disagree. The opinion I am attributing to you is (in my opinion) faulty. It is like saying that human consciousness is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. Just because we use external tools to create (chemical compounds, e.g.) does not mean that human creations are anything other then the products of natural forces. True, I cannot think of an example in the animal world that parallels the smelting of iron by use of external tools; but lichens are a close example: using the photosynthetic properties of algae and the stability of fungi to change both of those organism's morphology, physiology and biochemistry so as to colonize all known terrestrial environs.

@VicZinc I think I get what you think, but I still disagree. The opinion I am attributing to you is (in my opinion)...

Ah, but lichens are a symbiotic relationship. It does only things that it's components can naturally do. Human need to actively learn to do the things we do. It's not from instict. No one taught a plant to photosynthesize; it just does. No one taught a spider to make webs; it just does.

If the knowledge of how to make something was not in an organism's instinct, then that organism had to discover and learn how to make it. The process of discovery, almost by definition, is to extend what you are naturally able to do, which is arguably supernatural. It's just that now the term supernatural has come to mean ghostly. Plastic is technically a supernatural substance because it can't be biologically made.

B10ckH34ds avatar B10ckH34d Disagree +1Reply
@B10ckH34d Ah, but lichens are a symbiotic relationship. It does only things that it's components can naturally do. Human need...

I am not buying your arguments. It sounds like you believe that human are superior in status to other animals because their physiological differences.

Surely you are aware that animals can "learn", and that there are lots of examples of animals using tools, and experimenting with new techniques. I by no means claim that any species is nearly as advanced as humans, but that does not negate the fact that what we do, we do naturally, because that is what nature intended us to do it.

Speciesism is common among humans. However observing it, and perpetuating it, only provides a excuse for humans to continue to act contemptuously toward nature. We are not above nature, we are part of it. You will never convince me otherwise.

@VicZinc I am not buying your arguments. It sounds like you believe that human are superior in status to other animals...

Well I don't consider things animals learn how to do as natural, unless it's survival stuff like hunting. Nature intended for humans to be smart. That's it. Nature did not specifically intend for us to invent nuclear weapons. Nature did, however, specifically intend for otters to break clams with rocks.

We do things naturally because it's the logical use of our intelligence. But that wasn't the intent of nature. At some point, caveman intelligence reached a critical point where it allowed them to make their own decisions as to what to use intelligence for. At first, it was just how to better not get eaten. Then, after the critical point, they realised you could sharpen sticks or tie stones to sticks to make weapons. That was not a natural decision in the sense that nature was unable to make it and it's existence required a species to create their own tools. If a monkey did it, it would also not be natural. If otters had to carve rocks into a certain shape to break clams, then that's not natural, but since they just pick any comfortably held rock, it is.

My definition of a natural is that the task/object can be made under conditions uninfluenced by animal life, or is done by th...

B10ckH34ds avatar B10ckH34d Disagree +1Reply
@VicZinc I am not buying your arguments. It sounds like you believe that human are superior in status to other animals...

If you could make a hand axe by leaving a rock, a stick and a thin vine near each other in a forest, then I woudl consider that object natural. But if it takes a long time to happen, then that implies you cannot make a thousand of them per day. If humans use their hands to make a thousand per day, it means they are not using the same process as the forest, thus making it an artificial hand axe. Same if a monkey or an otter did it.

If iron ore could be smelted by leaving it near a volcano, I would consider the existence of pure iron on Earth natural. But you need several conditions that must be created to do so. These conditions do not exist in nature.

If there was a tree that grew straight, sharp branches, and humans broke those off and threw them, wooden spears would be natural. But if a rock were tied to it for the head, and that can't exist without an animal doing it manually, then it's not natural.

Throwing a spear is also natural, because that action is no stranger than biting. Biting is a natural action, so that's why I consider hunting a natural act, even though most animals need to learn how.

B10ckH34ds avatar B10ckH34d Disagree +1Reply
@VicZinc Would you not say it is the nature of humanness to create and use tools?

Yes. But the tools themselves are not natural. It is in our nature to create and use tools, but not the specific tools we have created. That was up to us. The concept of tools is natural, but the actual tools, once given form and thus specificity, are not.

All animals have the capacity (in theory) to extend nature and create unnatural things. It's just mostly, it's done by humans. The best example would be synthetic elements but I didn't want to go to extremes.

B10ckH34ds avatar B10ckH34d Disagree +1Reply
@B10ckH34d Yes. But the tools themselves are not natural. It is in our nature to create and use tools, but not the specific...

So we are natural - but our specific tools are not, they are man made...

So when animals make things out of what nature has, it's still considered natural, but when we make something out of what nature has, it's call man-made.
Do I have hat right?

Humans are natural. But their constructs are called something else besides natural. Do I have that right?

@VicZinc So we are natural - but our specific tools are not, they are man made... So when animals make things out of what...

1. Yes.

2. When animals do it, it's not man-made, but it's not natural either. Unless they use it in the raw form, or a form refined by the environment. I think artificial would fit here, but it may come from the word man-made, and I'm too lazy to look it up.

3. Yes.

B10ckH34ds avatar B10ckH34d Disagree +1Reply

Depends on ones definition of natural. Based on the definition I think makes sense, yes, we're just as natural as everything. Yet, one may define it as things that aren't human. Another may say that natural is things that are usual and not out of the ordinary

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.