Perhaps, given the danger mankind poses to everything else, and the fact that nature is usually in harmony when man leaves it alone, then it can only mean that man is alien, probably not of this Earth, and as such wreaks a destructive and unharmonious streak in its wake
Nature has killed off lots of species. Most of them, in fact. We’d be special if we don’t die off.
Nonsense. Asteroid strikes, the Deccan floods, the Missoula floods, Ice Ages, drought, evolution of new species, death of old ones, magnetic pole reversals. Nature is not in harmony.
We don’t operate outside of nature, though. The things we do we do because it’s in our nature to do them. All of our thoughts, our choices, the way that we structure ourselves are based on natural drives and impulses, both the ones that help us and the ones that hurt us. Even our getting along with each other is part of our nature. We’re a gregarious social species that feels comfortable interacting with each other in the same way that a snail, for instance, doesn’t.
And all life forms are potentially dangerous to other life forms. Those lions on the Serengeti that you see on the nature films? If they could, they’d keep on reproducing and keep on eating zebras until there aren’t any zebras left. They haven’t exterminated the zebra population, but it’s not for lack of trying.
We don’t operate outside of nature? It’s all natural drives and impulses? Really?
The same mechanics that keep the lions from eating all the zebras on the serengeti are the same mechanics keeping us from emptying out the seas? Really?
I disagree that we are not wholly a part of nature. What possible reason is there to believe that? Natural selection is still in full force. Food, sex, status and power are all still scarce.
See, in addition to biological natural selection, which still applies faithfully, there is another, less understood and faster acting form of information evolution. This is culture, society, etc. And it has been helped immensely by science. So we can try Communism and see how and why it failed. We can study economics to see how we can do better. But there is still plenty of competition and in fact it seems, unfortunately, that progress is a result of this competition and cannot be separated entirely. I think the environment and nature are intimate parts of this evolution and there are trade offs that we all must make, individually.
So yes, we should continue to attempt to better humanity through technology, science and politics. But enforcing a uniform set of morals and/or wealth is not the way to do this. If anything, we should promote freedom of thought, information and as much as possible, competition.
I personally believe some sort of social safety net would actually encourage competition and freedom, and that’s where I depart from my libertarian brethren. But reasonable minds can differ and I’m 100% okay with that.
Yes.
Define “nature”. I don’t see how you can do it without including people, unless you define it pointlessly as “non-human stuff”. We’re just big-brained monkeys, trying to get along in this world like any other animal. Nothing more.
It’s the height of arrogance to say that we operate “outside” of nature. Nature produced us, and we are every bit a part of nature as any other organism.
And keep in mind that > 99% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct. There is nothing unnatural about extinction. But the funny thing is, all life on earth will one day be gone. Everything. Unless… we travel beyond our solar system and take some life with us. We are, in fact, the only hope that earthly life has of outliving the natural destruction of our planet.
Again with this objective nonsense.
Allow me to demonstrate by a example, or more specifically your lack of ability to find an example, that some concepts are absolutely bad even despite objectivists “your morals ain’t real and you ain’t my daddy!” type objections.
Please give me a person whom you would claim is good that has a definition that has definition of “not bad” that includes the Holocaust.
In other words if you can’t claim any knowledgable, good person could be okay with the Holocaust then you’re admitting there’s some things that are always bad.
In grim detail, explain to me why a good person would think millions of people being gassed and tortured to death isn’t a bad thing.
Yes it’s an unfair question but explain to me objectively why that’s bad. You can’t.
You actually think that lions make a conscious effort to avoid depleting a food resource? So if a lion was hungry, and there was one zebra on the planet left, you think that somehow the lion would just “know” not to eat it. What “mechanics” are you refering to?
I don’t think you understand what the term “objective” means in this context. Of course we, as humans, want to preserve our species. But we’re biased. There is nothing objectively “good” about whether or not we, as a species, survive. And there is nothing objectively good about whether we kill all the polar bears or not. Most of us like having the polar bears around, and we think it’s bad if they die out. But that is a subjective argument, not an objective one.
Then we agree that we are a part and product of nature. I just don’t understand what it is you won’t qualify as operating outside of nature. There are loads of examples where we operate outside of nature. From the very small to the very big.
Clothes and mostly living indoors has caused us to lose our natural fur. Invention of light has freed us from the natural day-night cycle. These are the very beginings of operating outside of nature. We became aware of our surroundings and looked at the stars like no other species has ever done before.
We started to get organized and highly specialized on a scale never seen before. We were no longer just a part and product of nature, we became aware of nature and the games she plays.
I mean seriously, are you claiming that taking a cab to the airport to fly across the atlantic in 5 hrs is like nature intended? If nature wanted us to fly she would have given us wings. Remember?
Nature may not have given us wings, but she gave us the knowhow to make an airplane. When a beaver builds a dam, or when a chimp jabs grass into a termite hole to get the termites out, are they acting outside of nature? We’re just a lot better at it than they are. One of the ways we’ve adapted is that we’ve grown really big brains and really manipulative digits so that we can make tools.
And you’re using the pathetic fallacy. Nature doesn’t intend a damn thing. Nature doesn’t play games. Everything we do is part of nature, because everything in this world is part of nature.
I think you misunderstood me, the lions don’t have to make an effort because they play their role as part and product of nature and don’t operate outside of it. They act the part as predator in the foodchain called the habitat of the serengeti. The last sentence also refers to the mechanics.
Why is fur natural and lack of fur not natural? Besides, we probably lost our fur long before we started wearing clothes and “living indoors”.
Nature does’t “intend” or “want” anything. You are anthropomorphizing. But if nature did want or intend something, she gave us brains with enough smarts to invent cars and airplanes.
Did nature want chimps to be able to fish termites out of with specially made tools for that purpose? Not just a random stick found on the ground, but one specifically made to work well? And one which requires years of watching and practice to get right? Are chimps on a slippery slope of become outside nature?
She did? Or was it just us and our ingenuity and desire to fly(operating outside of nature)?
Does it look like they are acting outside of nature?
You listen to what your digits tell you to do? How’s that for pathetic fallacy? Of course I don’t mean games in the literal sense. I was refering to the fact that natural processes can be discribed and predicted. Cause and effect, subsystems part of larger systems interacting. From single cell bacteria to huge weather systems and everything inbetween.
Define “outside of nature”.
Is a hunter/gatherer using a bow and arrow operating “outside of nature”?
Allow me an analogy:
Everyone complains about slow traffic when trying to get somewhere, and yet rarely ever contemplates the fact that they are part of the traffic itself.
We and our huuuge brains are a part of nature, and the result of blind evolution, true. To argue that the artificial work-arounds humans have been able to implement are a part of nature, is like arguing that leaving your car parked in the middle of a grid-locked highway so you can walk to your destination is a natural aspect of highway traffic (and not just you, but almost everybody else).
And it very well might be, but the key here is it’s wholly unprecedented. We have no inkling as to what consequences this might have on the rest of our ecosphere.
To hold the notion that these artificial shortcuts are simply a part of nature is fine, but to not think about the consequences without pause, caution or even just asking the questions the OP is exploring is somewhere between naive and arrogant.
We are introducing and embarking on a path “nature” has never seen before. This includes us. To dwell on the consequences is substantially prudent.
IOW: Nature up to now has been largely unguided and indifferent. We’re changing that by influencing nature artificially with our desires. And sometimes willy-nilly at that.
Enough with the define. Did it once in this thread, nothing came of it. Not doing it again.
Make of it whatever you like it to be, I’m obviously not doing a good job at explaining it. If there is not the slightest sense of understanding of what I mean with ‘outside of nature’ from these last few post, then there is nothing more I can say to clear it up for you.
I’m not much impressed with your analogy, but the rest of your post makes a lot more sense that the OP.
Allow me an analogy: The OP’s argument is akin to the argument that homosexuality is bad because it is unnatural.
Yes, we have an unprecedented ability to alter the planet. It is wise to consider what that means. But we also have to recognize that global solutions require global cooperation-- something that is largely beyond our ability at this point in time.