I’m well aware this could turn into a GD but I thought I’d best start it here as I’m not sure.
My question is this:
Why is there such a distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘man-made’? Surely that implies we are somehow outside of nature. Is it because we change the world around us? Beavers make dams, some apes use tools, are they not doing the same thing? Just because our tools and structures are more complex, does that make them contrary to the natural state of things?
Not sure if I’ve made my point entirely clear, but you get the idea.
well…i think what makes us different from animals like beavers, who build simple dams, is that we disrupt nature in ways that no animal can possibly do. I need to think about this a bit more…i’ll come up with a better answer…but this is a start.
I recall hearing a lecture by one biologist that denied the difference between man-made environments and “natural” ones. He said man is a product of nature, and so are his creations, like cities. As a specific example, he cited the high population of birds in cities, i.e. the peregrine falcon inhabiting highrise buildings in large cities. He compared metropolitan architectures to mountainous high-altitude areas, and that animals that occupy the mountain ecological niche are quite happy in cities.
The diffence between the apes and ourselves when it comes to tool-making is that we can use a tool to MAKE a tool. An ape uses a tree branch in pretty much its natural form. He may shorten it, or remove the leaves, to suit his purpose, but it’s still a tree branch. We take a tree, grind it up, glue the sawdust together and make cheap furniture. I’m sure that no one could argue that plastic is a “natural” substance, nor other synthetic-chemical based materials. “Natural” implies that the object is in pretty much the same form it could be found in nature, while man-made means that the material has been altered through technological or chemical means that would never occur outside of human interferance.
I’ve always thought this was just a matter of symantics.
Consider “natural” in the sense of opposite to “man made”. If you decide that man is natural, then everything we make or do is also natural and you can kick a couple of words out of the dictionary. But if you want to separate the stuff we do from stuff that happens on its own, “unnatural” and “natural” are useful adjectives.
Trouble is, usage and meaning of words change all the time and “natural” has become almost synonymous with “good”, or “right”, or “justified.” So we “disrupt nature” by the changes we effect, but “nature’s” own record of major climate fluctuations, mass extinctions and mindless aggressive competition gets ignored.
Lissa said: "An ape uses a tree branch in pretty much its natural form. He may shorten it, or remove the leaves, to suit his purpose, but it’s still a tree branch. We take a tree, grind it up, glue the sawdust together and make cheap furniture. I’m sure that no one could argue that plastic is a “natural” substance, nor other synthetic-chemical based materials"
Fair enough, but I could argue that carbon dioxide and water are “natural”. The tree takes the power of the Sun (nuclear power, no less!) and synthesises a polymer (cellulose) from it to make wood, an unnatural substance. It releases “oxygen” as a byproduct, an unstable, dreadfully corrosive gas which is poisonous to many organisms.
The raw materials for most plastics are carbon dioxide and water, but we don’t start there. Most of the work required to make plastic has already been done by plants and animals - coal and oil are natural products, the accumulated corpses of millions of lifeforms which didn’t dispose of themselves in an environmentally friendly manner. So yes, I could indeed argue that us making polymers from oil is as “natural” as wasps making paper nests from wood. But this is misusing the adjective - making polymers from oil is “unnatural” because we do it and that’s the only reason. Doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad, or disruptive of nature.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for applying a lot more thought to the ways in which we interact with our environment. I just dislike the automatic negative connotations so many people give to “unnatural”.
Maybe humans are just natures way of getting plastics! Maybe the universe considers plastic really neat, and had to produce us to make it! Now what do we do?
I’d say the simple distinction can be made because man-made stuff we can choose whether or not to take the action that creates it: we can decide whether we want to build a city there or not.
To influence the “natural” products of Earth’s biota, we would have to kill or encourage the other organisms that produce those products, and such decisions make agriculture, for example, also man-made.
Products that are created without our making a decision about it would then be completely natural.
And I agree heartily with matt that all that is “natural” is not necessarily good and that all that is man-made is not necessarily bad.
We do have a responsibility to try to make the right decisions about what we control and influence, though.
The mountain lions do just great, and have such a wide variety of prey! Of course, a lot of mountain critters don’t do too well in urban areas.
Man is a product of nature, but also a product of culture. (Try building a car from scratch ) We are the only animals that pass down artifacts and technologies.
Yeah, that’s the thesis of “The Ascent of Man” which is one of my favorite old books. The author declares that Man is the only animal with cultural evolution. He says this is due to language, which can allow an individual human to catch up with the entire of society’s cultural ability, and surpass it. Other animals without language don’t have the ability to evolve except biologically, and thus are pretty much slaves to their environmental niche. We carve our own niches.
To the OP…I also think it’s just semantics. It’s just a way for humans to distinguish between what is from our doing vs. everything else. Actually, I’ll caveat that further by saying it pertains to what is a product of our minds (not our respiration/digestion/etc.), intentionally (like a car) or not (like car exhaust pollution).
Not true (or at least, I’ve read that chimps have been observed to teach their children simple tool-use).
I understand that but the thing that bothers me is when people say that things like genetic engineering, nuclear power etc are ‘messing with nature’ when we and so everything we do are part of nature.
If you understand the semantics of it, then I guess the answer you’re looking for is that many people consider themselves separate from, or better/worse than, nature.
On the “better than” mindset, usually, this is accompagnied by a claim to divine favor. Kind of like the geocentric/anthropocentric mindset that “humans are the center of the universe…everything revolves around us…everything was created for us”, etc. There is the natural world, the divine world, and humans somewhere in between. Similarly many people refuse to believe that humans are animals.
On the “worse than” mindset, there is the feeling that nature is good and beautiful and that current human technology is polluting/destructive.
Of course, these are extremes.
“Natural” processes can’t directly create a computer, but natural processes can evolve intelligent life that can create a computer. So, like you say, where’s the distinction? Back to the semantics of the language. Perhaps we should replace “unnatural/natural” with “anthropogenic/non-anthropogenic”.
Bears, on the other hand, do not adapt quite so easily, as they can’t distinguish between doors that push, pull, or slide to open. Elevator doors are especially hazardous, although this is not much of a problem, since bears usually prefer to take the stairs.
When people say this, I think about it this way. Our planet developed (evolved) with humans on it for a very, very long time before we figured out how to tamper with stuff like nuclear power. The delicate balance of things happening on a life-bearing planet like ours does not include things like nuclear reactions, or deliberate tinkering with genetics. Now, nature does include things like nuclear reactions (in stars), but not together with birds and bees. If we’re not careful, we can really screw things up for ourselves, not to mention our furry friends.
When I read your OP, my mind went immediately to the Rules of Golf. The rules clearly distinguish between “natural” things (trees, water, sand, etc) which a golfer is expected to deal with, and get no relief from, and “artificial” obstructions (benches, sprinklers, cigarette butts and such) from which relief can be taken without penalty. (I know, not very profound, but true).
Of course, a lot of mountain critters don’t do too well in urban areas.
) We are the only animals that pass down artifacts and technologies.