Is man a part of nature?

Great Debates
41

Dude, you’re not paying attention. Nobody says that the unfalsifiable nature of the soul is evidence that it does exist. Rather, it’s the inadequacies of the material explanation which provide support for the non-material one.

Besides, why should we reject a hypothesis becuase it’s “unfalsifiable”? That’s a ridiculous reason to reject it! (Before you object, your exact words were “we can’t use the unfalsifiable nature of the soul as evidence that it might exist, since under my philosophy that is a reason to reject it.” No backing out of that statement, fella.)

One might reject a hypothesis for other reasons – inconsistency, for example – but it’s absurd to reject something because it can’t be falsified. A falsifiable statement is less reliable than an unfalsifiable one.

Maybe you meant “untestable,” dude. That’s still a lame reason to reject something though. Non-scientific matters, such as philosophy, are usually not testable in any strict sense. (Heck, even scientific matters aren’t always testable in a rigorous way.) It’s kinda lame to demand testability for philosophical issues such as whether man is 100% part of nature.

42

Said Phobos, 'Defining “nature” would help. ’

Well, according to Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=nature, nature is:

By each of the above definitions, I would conclude that man is indeed part of nature. We are born. We breed and eat and sleep. We, like every other known species of animal, eventually die.

And free will? I choose to act as if I have it. With it comes an awareness of responsiblity – which I’ll get to in a moment.

Practically speaking, whether or not we have free will, or souls, does not matter. We do have physical bodies which need to eat. Let a person get hungry enough, and energy once used to ponder fine points of theology, or physics, will be diverted to finding food.

Which brings me to responsiblity and the extinction of species – how many people are thinking about the uncountable soil organisms we’ve lost in the past fifty years to monoculture farming? The weight of tractors compresses soils to hardpan. This is aggravated by fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides which kill off the worms and mites and fungi and bacteria that creat spaces plant roots need to spread… When are we going to learn that we can’t shit where we eat?

As an individual, I choose to try to keep my consumption to a minimum. I ain’t always successful. I’m not a fanatic, just a lazy sob. But I am aware that my actions are part of a cumulative effect on the planet.

43

Sorry about the above hijack. Appears I’m more interested in how people define “nature” to themselves. Guess I’ll jump to GQ’s and start a new thread.

44

If Man (with runaway technologies and overpopulation) is “part of nature,” what is NOT a part of nature? That’s the real question. Evidence shows that Man is blatantly overstepping nature’s boundaries, thus can’t be a part of nature unless nature is bound to self-destruct.

No other species banks on endless population growth to sustain itself.

No other species destroys its life support systems and calls it “growth.”

No other species drives so many others to extinction.

No other species scours the oceans and wipes out marine life.

No other species destroys forests with logging and unnatural fires.

No other species fouls the air and water with so many toxins.

No other species burns fossil fuels, which would have remained benign.

No other species creates non-recyclable garbage and huge landfills.

No other species converts rivers to vast lakes and drains wetlands.

No other species distributes non-native organisms around the globe.

No other species replaces stable ecosystems with monoculture crops.

No other species changes the albedo of millions of acres.

No other species depletes aquifers and creates dust bowls.

No other species spews synthetic chemicals all over the place.

No other species kills with firearms, dragnets, steel traps & pesticides.

No other species creates nuclear weapons & waste.

No other species disturbs the peace with electro-mechanical noise.

No other species wages wars and kills millions of its own kind.

A species that DESTROYS nature can’t be “part of nature” unless nothing is deemed UNnatural.

45

In nature, little is wasted in terms of physical resources, but Man is a profligate wastrel species. It comes down to behavior and sheet human numbers amplifying said behavior every second. The fact that we originated from nature is a red herring.

Our economy mostly runs on fossil fuel capital and we are depleting an ancient savings account while calling it “growth.” Most people born in the oil and coal age take cheap energy as a birthright, leading to an embedded arrogance and apathy. Look at all the people idling their engines while talking on cellphones, for example. They spew huge amounts of unrecoverable energy and fumes into the sky and think little of it.

When one really studies the sheet volume of waste, one can’t possibly call human behavior “natural.” Our main sources of energy are one-use throw-away products, and countless products derived from oil stocks are similarly thrown away. Think about plastic utensils as just a small example. Or how many paper cups you trash each day at work. The cumulative waste is staggering and no other species lives like that.

I think we ceased being part of nature when agriculture first kicked in and we modified nature to suit only our needs. Look up the total amount of land used just to grow crops and feed livestock. The human land-grab alone puts us far outside any sane definition of “natural.”

46

When this was first posted, I think I was in grade school.

47

If man isn’t part of nature, what is he part of? There’s nothing else besides the natural world, after all.

48

Cite please.

Humanity is the only species that does all these horrible things because humanity is the only species that has the capability to do so.

Prove to me that tigers and lions and bears shun the use of firearms and bombs and pollutants out of a sense of moral restraint, rather than their lack of intellectual capacity and absence of opposable thumbs.

49

Man is part of nature. Zombies? Not so much…

50

It’s basically a meaningless question, except to define “nature”. Either we define nature as everything, in which case being “a part of nature” is meaningless. Or we define nature as everything other than what humans do, in which case humans are, by definition, not part of nature.

51

If man and everything that man does is “nature” then the term loses it’s usefulness.

As a simple semantic issue, “nature” and “natural” should be reserved for things that happen regardless of human intellect, and culture, and creativity.

Oops, just noticed that this is a necropost.

52

All of which doesn’t illuminate the issue. There is no way that evidence can answer a semantic question. The question is “what do we mean by the term”. One answer makes it useful, another answer makes it useless.

Or course, I’m making humanist assumptions. Those who believe that concepts are defined by God or eternal Platonic forms would disagree fundamentally.

53

Most of those are things that have been done by other species, or that other species don’t do just because they can’t. There are a number of species that poison their environment for example. For an extreme example, the rise of plants killed more life and altered the environment far more than humans have. As for wars; ants fight wars. Plenty of organisms “bank on endless population growth” to sustain themselves, more so than we do; our own is slowing down. And so on.

54

And so is everything else that exists that man didn’t create.

55

There’s the “artificial” world, made up of things that never existed in nature until humans created it.

To say that Seaborgium is a “naturally occurring element” is to distort the word so far as to make a pretzel start to look Euclidean.

56

Not really. It’s a “naturally occurring element” when man exists. To put man apart from nature is a religious concept, not a scientific one.

57

I’ll accept that it’s a sociological concept, but not that it is a religious one.

This usage makes the word “natural” indistinguishable from “existing.” It reduces it to an empty tautology. Nuclear weapons, genetic engineering, supercomputers, the Hadron Collider, are all naturally occurring items. If that’s so, then there isn’t anything that isn’t naturally occurring, and the phrase is useless.

Mankind diverted from nature with the mastery of fire, the invention of agriculture, and the sophistication of using tools to make tools. I might go so far as to concede that sharpened sticks exist “in nature,” but not ox-drawn ploughs.

58

No, there are natural phenomena (of which man is apart) and supernatural phenomena, of which man is not apart.

Says who? There are ants that engage in agriculture. Are they apart from nature? And how do you define “sophisticated tools”?

Why not?

59

Shrug. We differ in opinion. (Gosh, fancy that!) :smiley:

60

Fact remains that if anything makes us special it is our more sophisticated use of technology, not something magic like a soul.