How about a beaver dam, then? It’s something that never existed in nature until beavers created it. Are they part of the artificial world, or the natural world?
In other words, why are human activities the line of demarcation?
It’s useful to distinguish between that which occurs without human influence and that which doesn’t. If beavers could be reasoned with, then we might not have such an anthropocentric definition of the word. We could perhaps ask them not to build a dam in a particularly inconvenient spot, or to direct them to somewhere more useful. From most human perspectives, it doesn’t matter if beavers made the dam or if it grew out of the ground. If humans did it, though… well you can at least sue them.
Yes, it’s useful, but let’s remember what the OP wrote in this thread (even it was over decade ago):
In that context, the answer to the question in the thread title is “no”, unless you are going to invoke religion.
I was answering the question, which wasn’t about religion or in direct response to the OP, but in response to Trinopus, who didn’t seem to be talking about religion, either. It wasn’t about man being above nature, it was asking why we distinguish between man and nature at all. Since this thread is 13 years old, I don’t think anyone is trying too hard to directly answer the OP.
Perfect.
If we weren’t part of nature, these species wouldn’t be able to use us as habitat. The human microbiome wouldn’t be a hot topic because there wouldn’t be a human microbiome or if it was there, it wouldn’t be interacting with our immune systems or genes the ways that parts of it do. We wouldn’t have to swat mosquitoes. And we wouldn’t be able to eat other parts of nature to get energy. We are irrevocably connected.
Beaver dams are pretty complex, to be sure, but they’re ultimately instinctive, and coded in DNA. A steam engine is not coded in human DNA.
ETA: it isn’t “human activities” that are the line of demarcation! We do a lot of natural stuff too, such as reproductive activities, excretion, etc. Don’t over-extend the argument.
The real question is: is the Argentine Ant part of nature? 
Be afraid. Be very afraid. :eek:
But the cognitive skills to make a steam engine are.
Was the first beaver dam unnatural, and it only became such when it evolved into intinctual behavior?
So what is the line, then?
I would say that there are no supernatural phenomena, but yes, you’re right that one useful definition of the word is distinguishing natural from supernatural. That’s just not the only useful definition. (BTW, I think you mean “of which man is a part”. Using “apart” gives your sentence the opposite meaning from what you intend, impyling that man is apart (separate from) nature. But then you’d use “from which man is apart” not “of which man is apart”.) The word “natural” is also useful as an antonym of “artificial”. Would you discard the word “artificial” since everything humans do is part of Nature, since it’s done by human nature?
Fine, but you’ll be in a minority, and you’ll have a hard time communicating, since you’re using a personal definition of the word “nature” rather than the common one.
Exactly. It’s an arbitrary demarcation, but a very useful one.
I agree. The answer to THAT question is “no”. Human activity isn’t “higher” than nature, any more than humans are “more evolved” than other life forms. That is a valid philosophical question.
There are lots of other distinctions between human behavior and plant or animal behavior. With the former, we can discuss ethics and morality. With the latter, we don’t.
First, it’s not entirely instinct. The instinct is to build a dam, and the instinct involves a lot of the procedures, but intelligence is used to construct one that works best with the least effort. Contrast that to bees making honeycombs. The bees don’t figure anything out, they just follow a program (a program which evolved, just as did the instinct in beavers to collect sticks and dump them in streams).
Human vs. non-human. Or, “based on a technologically adept species” in case we encounter non-human civilizations.
As I said, it’s an ARBITRARY distinction, to differentiate stuff that happens because of our behavior from what would happen without us. It matters because we can adjust our behavior. Regardless of what a lot of tree-huggers and homeopathic fans might think, it’s not a value-laden term. Natural isn’t necessarily better, nor is artificial. They’re just different from the standpoint that one would exist without us and the other wouldn’t.
It’s really a very simple concept, but an important one, and one that needs a word. If you redefine “nature” to mean something else, we’ll just have to find another word (which someone will then object to for the same reason.)
If you think there is no value whatsoever in distinguishing what would exist without humans from what does exist due to humans, then fine, but I think you’re eliminating yourself from a lot of excellent discussions.
If the distinction is between what’s natural, and what’s artificial, I have a very hard time calling a beaver dam natural and not artificial. It’s not man-made, to be certain, but it’s not “natural” in the way a stone or a planet or a dam made of fallen logs that happened to lodge in place is.
The term as you’ve defined it here is both arbitrary and useful…but it has a ton of baggage. It seems to lead to considering mankind as something entirely removed and separate from the rest of the world, and it gets used as a value judgment constantly, as evinced in this thread. That said, I do take your meaning, as to the need for such a term, so I guess them’s the breaks.
The first dam might well have been accidental, but that isn’t enough for it to be artificial, in the sense of the counterpart to “natural.” (Not gonna use the word “unnatural!”)
This: asked and answered. Like many definitions in sociology, it’s arbitrary. When does a village become a town, or a town become a city? It is impossible to draw absolute ironclad definitions; there will always be some Podunk burg that falls afoul of the definition.
It’s easier, for me, to point at obvious extreme examples, as a form of “existence proof,” even if I cannot perform a working “construction proof.” If the Large Hadron Collider “exists in nature,” then that phrase is meaningless.
Another example would be an animal’s “natural habitat.” Why, gosh, yes, Polar bears naturally range in the Sahara. They do if we use the empty definition of “natural” that some here are promoting.
Separating what man does from what is considered natural is way of subdividing the world that is ultimately harmful and never helpful. We are a part of nature. We and everything that results from our existence is perfectly natural. We and all our creations are bound by the same laws of nature that exist everywhere. In fact, it is only by learning about and accepting these laws that we are able to create so many wonderful things.
On the other hand, harm is caused when we do not account for evolution in antibiotic use. Harm is caused when we make up theories about vaccines and autism that have no relationship with how the body actually works. Harm is caused when we devise social and economic systems that ignore real human behavior.
It is the same sort of error in thinking that has resulted in mind/body dualism. So much good science has been delayed because we do not readily think of our mind coming from the entirety of our body.
Natural vs. synthetic, mind vs. body: They’re ideas that only result from a world that has not had science fully penetrate it yet.
I would disagree that it is “never” helpful. That’s much too strong a condemnation of what is, ultimately, a philosophical stance.
Just as one example, it can be taken as a cautionary moral position against pollution. “We must be good caretakers of our environment” may or may not be a “true” philosophical viewpoint, but it is actually a beneficial one, as it reminds us not to foul our nest.
I’m not sure why a strong condemnation of a philosophical stance is a problem. I think no argument would come from my saying that believing the Sun revolves around the Earth is never helpful. It was never helpful, objectively.
The concept that we are caretakers of the environment is of course only harmful. The message should be closer to “You are damaging yourself with this pollution”, which is a fact. Instead, we have this idea of ‘nature’, ‘environment’ etc. being somehow separate from us instead of something that is us. By separating it away from ourselves, we cognitively leave open the option of not recognizing it as a part of ourselves and allowing us to feel that we can ignore it. The most effective environmental efforts come about when we overcome this barrier of nature versus us and see that we are harming ourselves. For example, the ozone hole, catch and release, ducks unlimited, and all the cute poster children for wildlife protection efforts.
No other species has useless hippies that are tolerated. Maybe we should be more like the other species.
I strongly disagree. I think it behooves us to look at the consequences of our actions and see how we affect the reality in which we live, which includes the ecology, the economy, society, psychology, and virtually every aspect of human existence, though the current question is limited to ecology.
It would be foolish to ignore the effects of humanity on the ecology.
We are a part of everything, We and everything that results from our existence is perfectly real. – See, we don’t need to use the word “nature” here, and using it obfuscates rather than illuminates.
To say that everything we do is “perfectly natural” is meaningless, unless you mean “is to be expected” but that would only follow “from xxxx” where xxxx is a hypothesis or theory or set of known facts. To blithely toss in “natural” is to dismiss the fact that we have control over our destiny.
No argument. However, this doesn’t mean that there is no use in distinguishing the results of human action from what would otherwise occur. Why turn a blind eye?
So then, what term do you propose we use when we want to refer to “that which would exist without human activity”? We’ll need a noun, adjective, and adverb.
It was too strong. You said “Never” and one single counterexample serves to refute it. This is a tyro blunder on a discussion board like this one.
It is, in fact, the mathematical model used by the Apollo program and NASA. If they had to use the heliocentric model, the computational arithmetic would be overwhelming.
You continue to overstate your points.
It was useful in achieving anti-pollution regulations. It was a persuasive argument.
“Never say never.” Exaggeration in rhetoric is no virtue. (Gosh, never!)
So is a termite mound natural, or not? After all, it’s made up of things that never existed in nature until termites created it. Right?
So does that mean that termite mounds are artificial? And if termite mounss are artificial, what about bird nests? Or fox dens? Aren’t they also artificial?
It seems like you are ustilising a circular definition here, combined with one hell of an example of special pleading: Things that never existed before humans created them are not part of the natural world because humans are not part of the natural world, and things that never existed before other species created them are part of the natural world because those other species are somehow natural.
How is that any more distorted than claiming that a termite mound is somehow natural?
Or what about the very atmosphere of this planet? Our oxygen atmosphere is entirely the product of a single lifeform. Surely that is far more unnatural than a trace amount of some short-lived isotope.
Isn’t it? 
Killer whales hunting seals on iceflows isn’t encoded in their DNA either, it’s learned behaviour.
So is that unnatural behaviour?
How about termites utilising novel fungi in their mounds. That’s learned behaviour. Does that make it unnatural?
Is you position that any learned behaviour is unnatural? Or is it only learned human behaviour.
The problem isn’t whether humans do “natural” stuff. The problem is that your standards seem to result in “unnatural” being synonymous with “learned”.