Nature and humanity

[Dr Jones]

Hmmm, I've often debated this with myself, but the way I see it is that humans ARE nature, BUT that does not mean they cannot destroy it, nature destroys it's self, think about it, erosion, animals building homes, natural disasters etc. BUT What makes it different that humans do it is that we have free will, thus CHOSE to do this sort of thing, yes to advance as a species and to increase survival rates but never the less it changes nothing in a way, one species that compared to a single group of insects is a tiiiiiny population destroying nature for so many other parts of nature, thus it's kinda ruining more than it's helping, but I guess if insects were as advanced as us they'd do the same kinda thing... In short, humans ARE part of nature, dispite the fact that we destroy other parts of nature.

You mention things like erosion as destroying nature,
But isn't it just creating a new nature? A new environment?

 

[Mr. Froggy]

Google is your best friend, just google for the grammar rules associated with using quotation marks. Now, quotation marks can be used, and are accepted by writing standards, for purposes other than quoting, but only in matter of style. Like Mr. Jones pointed out, from the wikipedia article, quotation marks "can also be used to indicate another sense or meaning of words, phrases or parts of text by which one wants the reader to interpret the statement or text than the one initially suggested, such as to convey irony." This is a matter of style though, and "Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion. Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), 15th edition[13][14] acknowledges this type of use but cautions against overuse in section 7.58: 'Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense [...] They imply 'This is not my term' or 'This is not how the term is usually applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate readers if overused.'" Also from wiki. I'll assume that the guy who used quotation marks for nature does not agree with the accepted definition, so I'll cut him some slack. Still, you guys are trying to sound impartial, using quotation marks for anything other than quoting just isn't proper.

I'll throw you guys a bone though, use these ['']. That's right, single quotation marks can be used to set apart key words. It's still not very acceptable to use single quotation marks for this purpose, so keep it to a minimum.

 

[Mr. Froggy]

Definition of natural according to your source

"having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc."

Effin ninja'd you!

That's an existential kind of definition, but we're not talking about whether something has a "real or physical existence" are we? If you apply this definition to this argument, robots creating robots would be a natural process. From what this discussion is about, we're mainly looking at whether things created by human beings, which are natural beings, are considered natural. The answer is no. The definition clearly differentiates between natural and artificial.

Your ninja skills need work, since you still don't know how to use your weapons properly.

 

[Dr Jones]

Definition of natural according to your source

"having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc."

Effin ninja'd you!

That's an existential kind of definition, but we're not talking about whether something has a "real or physical existence" are we? If you apply this definition to this argument, robots creating robots would be a natural process. From what this discussion is about, we're mainly looking at whether things created by human beings, which are natural beings, are considered natural. The answer is no. The definition clearly differentiates between natural and artificial.

Your ninja skills need work, since you still don't know how to use your weapons properly.

Well shit, why aren't robots natural huh? We are a product of nature, therefore what we make is a product of nature.
How are robotic tools different than what animals may use?

 

[kinggamecat]

Hmmm, I've often debated this with myself, but the way I see it is that humans ARE nature, BUT that does not mean they cannot destroy it, nature destroys it's self, think about it, erosion, animals building homes, natural disasters etc. BUT What makes it different that humans do it is that we have free will, thus CHOSE to do this sort of thing, yes to advance as a species and to increase survival rates but never the less it changes nothing in a way, one species that compared to a single group of insects is a tiiiiiny population destroying nature for so many other parts of nature, thus it's kinda ruining more than it's helping, but I guess if insects were as advanced as us they'd do the same kinda thing... In short, humans ARE part of nature, dispite the fact that we destroy other parts of nature.

You mention things like erosion as destroying nature,
But isn't it just creating a new nature? A new environment?

Hmmm I've never thought of that! By that logic humans are creating a new nature I guess... Just a more synthetic one that is meant for humans... Add me dood, I like yer style. Ya give a great argument ^^

 

[Mr. Froggy]

Well shit, why aren't robots natural huh? We are a product of nature, therefore what we make is a product of nature.
How are robotic tools different than what animals may use?

Animals don't use tools, they use things like tools. There's a subtle difference here; when a primate uses a stick to get ants out of a hole, he didn't invent an ant catching machine, he's just using a stick. If a monkey uses a rock like a hammer, he's not using a primitive hammer, he's just using a rock. Animals don't use tools, they just use things; when we look at animals using things, we're the ones who say they look like they're using tools, but they're not. Even so, you are looking at the question the wrong way. There is no room for interpretation here, the definition is clear, anything human made is artificial.

 

[Xrysthos]

Hmmm, I've often debated this with myself, but the way I see it is that humans ARE nature, BUT that does not mean they cannot destroy it, nature destroys it's self, think about it, erosion, animals building homes, natural disasters etc. BUT What makes it different that humans do it is that we have free will, thus CHOSE to do this sort of thing, yes to advance as a species and to increase survival rates but never the less it changes nothing in a way, one species that compared to a single group of insects is a tiiiiiny population destroying nature for so many other parts of nature, thus it's kinda ruining more than it's helping, but I guess if insects were as advanced as us they'd do the same kinda thing... In short, humans ARE part of nature, dispite the fact that we destroy other parts of nature.

Ever wondered how mountains and highlands came into existense? Ancient mountains were eroded, their sediments carried out to sea. Due to tectonics, the plates that create the surface of our planet, move around, and when they collide, they are driven back into the mantle, which is the molten rock under said plates. When they melt, we get volcanism, which in combination with the colliding forces of the plates create new mountains. This has been going on for over 4 billion years. Think of it as recycling.

What I'm saying is that nature isn't destroying itself, it's constantly changing itself. The same goes for natural disasters. The species of animals and life in general that populate this planet today are the result of similar disasters in the past. Evolution changes the species, but have you ever considered what this world would look like if the ancient mass extinctions had never occured? The permian extinction event killed ~70% of all life on land, and ~90% of all life in the ocean.