What is natural?

[roaldin]

What is the question? - Hmmm, tricky...

Check out HitchHikers guide to the Galaxy - the book, radio show or TV series - not the movie.
BTW forget the TV series if you don't like what I and the English would define as "DR Who (original)" standard special effects. IMO would be less funny without them.

R.I.P. Douglas.


Just because something doesn't FEEL natural from the observers point of view doesn't mean that it is unnatural in the bigger picture.
It may well FEEL unnatural, for example, to have a Liberal Party (supposedly right) in Australia asking for bank regulation, and a Labor Party (supposedly left) against the idea.
It is however perfectly natural. The grass has ALWAYS seemed greener on the other side.
Humans are therefore cows, and what could be more natural than a cow?

That sound you hear of laptops slamming shut and monitors being smashed by bored foreheads is the natural response to one of my longer posts.

Love the premise for the thread. Thank's for the fun.

Tim.

 

[Graham]

In reality I think most people choose convenience over "natural". The label that says "natural" may ease the conscience a bit but...

If I want I can live off my property - do I do so... not really... but one day...

My property can provide fish (both salt and freshwater), other seafood, fruit, nuts, herbs, mushrooms, game (inc' duck, natives, rabbit, goose for special occasions and even swan if a queen wanders by).
Vegetables, chicken eggs and other livestock would be easy... Hmmm - Now that I think about it...

Having all that available but still living on what most would consider a reasonably healthy but modern diet is about as natural an idiocy as any other human activity I can think of.

Tim. (Waiting for a monolith)

Tim,

Hitchhikers guide AND 2001 in a row - when you're hot you're HOT!

 

[Roark_John]

I don't think dependance has anything to do with nature or our part in it, it simply is what it is.
A Cat doesn't need to be a Tiger but a Tiger MUST be a Cat.
Nature doesn't need to have Human/human activity but a Human/Human activity MUST be natural.

There IS a difference between A nature and THE nature...

It is Life's nature to survive and thrive, not nature's.
The fact that we are in plague and diminishing our resources and damaging our environment simply puts us in the same boat as locusts etc - all natural. Indeed most life on Earth does the same thing if it gets the opportunity.
I disagree about the "no other creature" but I don't see it as relevant. No other creature looks like an Octopus but it's still natural.

Life is not, can not and never will be separate from nature. It was the nature that gave rise to the life, not the other way around... Chimpanzees are the 2nd most violent members of the primate community (in regards to their own members), but this is a trait that is only characteristic of primates in matters that do not involve protection and territory... Locusts have natural predators, but have developed an interesting survival technique that has them hibernating and hatching in intervals of year comprised of prime numbers (13, 17, etc) because if they did not they would go extinct due to their voracious appetite, whereas we as a species have no natural predators and no survival technique whereby we hibernate our violent proclivities to get us through the long winters or droughts...

See discussion 1 above.
Basic disagreement - Nature includes Man. Man is a part of it. Necessary - no, but so what - unnecessary things are natural.
Reality is what it is.



The only unnatural thing around here is this keyboard...



Tim.

So by your reasoning, cannibalism is natural? Why don't other species engage in this activity? I guess I would have to say that I equate (if that's even possible) natural with a kind of morality or ethics that does not depend on human ideas to be self-evident...

 

[roaldin]

Ever seen a rat?
They'll look after each other, but they'll eat each other as well, and they are not alone - here are a few others that push the envelope even further - Why Some Animals Eat Their Offspring | LiveScience
Not pleasant, but natural.

It's tough out there but unfortunately it's a dog eat dog kind of world.

Unfortunately, yes it is natural. Moral, good etc? Those are all different questions.
Just because I see something as natural doesn't mean I see it as good. Volcanoes, hurricanes, tsunami, earthquake are all NATURAL disasters, would I want one in my backyard - not particularly.

None of this matters really, this Universe is unbelievably beautiful and most of it is absolutely nothing like anything we are acquainted with in everyday life. Sometimes ugly is a necessary stone in the path to the extraordinary.

Is music natural?
Some say yes some say no.
Me, I say this Universe is a magnificent symphony - The dischordant sections enhance the whole.
Do I forgive nature the pain and the suffering? Not entirely, but we have come a long way because of survival of the fittest (among other mechanisms).



Thank's for noticing Graham. Unfortunately after confronting myself in the mirror every day I have to disagree and say that even when I'm hot.. I'm not... :shrug:
Not surprising that you picked up on the monolith...


Tim.

While you can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault not even the Roman's, you have the RIGHT to have babies.

 

[Dalton Veitch]

And we haven't even brought religion into the argument yet. Is belief in a deity natural? For instance, Tim mentioned tsunami's. My wife spent considerable time in Aceh after the tsunami, heading a team modernising part of the tertiary education system. And the local Indonesians did not see the tsunami as a random act of nature, but as a judgement from God. Therefore the more religious exhorted all Indonesians to be better, and Sharia law was pushed as the answer. What I see as natural, in terms of the laws of physics and dynamics of our planet, others may see as a deliberate conscious act (of God).

 

[Ian Anderson]

Guys

I thought this had all been discussed previously in this thread

http://www.gt40s.com/forum/paddock/23407-dilemma-nsfw.html

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ian

 

[roaldin]

Is it surprising that so many of the gods that people have created in their own various image have turned out out be such vengeful, vain, and cruel bastards?

Many religions start out with good intentions, unfortunately the rot almost always sets in.
It is a natural progression:- The uneasy recognition of our own insignificance and mortality and Mummy's inability to fix it for us/some sort of major event/obvious point of conjecture (eg stars)/a moment of silliness eg: eating a straight banana at the same time as an eclipse happens and deciding the two events must be connected - superstition - story - tradition - belief - religion - for some it becomes a fundamental "truth" that justifies death to all unbelievers.
Then there are the Wolves (title pinched from another thread) who would take and mold that trajectory into a power structure (with all the benefits that allows).
Stupidity, the pursuit of power and the tendency for many to cling so firmly to ignorance and hatred, are all unfortunately, natural human traits.
I think there are some pretty decent human traits as well, we should hear more about those. Dalton's Partner doing the work she has done in Aceh is a fine example.


Weaving in yet another thread, I nominate Dr Fred Hollows to be a Saint. His miracles? Bringing sight to many, many of the blind. This qualified as a miracle in another book I read a hundred times a while ago...
Oh yeah that's right, he was just doing something decent - doesn't qualify.

Just quickly on the subject other animal behaviours, I disagree with most of the conclusions drawn but none of that matters, it is irrelevant.
As for no natural predators I'm glad that is the case, mind you it'll kill the market for antibiotics.

Anyway that'll be my last in this discussion. I just had a look at a thread that mentioned natural entropy by the third page of a thread. It is also established that at some point all threads will include the statement "That's how Hitler started" and that this is a natural end to a thread. Naturally I'd like to avoid that...

Hey Ian, which do you prefer in the dilemma thread - "natural" or "unnatural"?
I'll stick to eating "eau naturelle"... - How rude! I was talking about this thread!


Tim.

 

[roaldin]

John,

Couldn't finish my edit so I'll complete it here.

I did not at any stage try to extract life from the definition of nature, it's just a part (perhaps tiny) of nature. The Cat may kill and eat the human if it is a Tiger, however if the Cat is a Siamese it probably won't.
The Cat kingdom is large and varied. The Tiger, although still a cat, has it's own properties distinct from other Cats.

The planet is full of natural human predators (I'm sure I've mentioned one somewhere), we just do a pretty decent job of protecting ourselves from them.

As for not having survival techniques that "hibernate" our violent tendencies (I really liked that ), I disagree again, we do and most of them work reasonably well for a while, one of those systems is called society.
What happens when the plague breaks? Same as any other probably - savage reduction in numbers, struggle, gradual return to the same behaviours. Who knows? Doesn't matter really. Whatever happens it will be natural.

Anyway, this was fun for a while and I'd hate to see it degenerate into anything else. You put forward some interesting ideas and I'm going to happily continue to consider them along with everything else I can fit into my tiny mind.
Perhaps they will assist in my pursuit of a worthwhile morality.

My point has been made, tucked in and the pillow fluffed.


Love, Light and Peace as the great Spike Milligan used to say.

Tim.