Romance of the 'Natural' world.

[Baranduin]

There's a side effect though, the patient dies in 99.9% of cases.

So the 0.1% becomes immortal? :lol:



In a more serious note, I agree that there's a romantic sense for the natural world, an idealized view a la locus amoenus. However, I think that they (we?) are far more hypocritical than what you all are pointing out.

Here's the experiment. Take one of those super-naturalists that think that nature is the most beautiful thing. Then, show him this video (you may prefer to keep reading instead of watching if you're taking your breakfast right now). Observe his contorted grimace, and remember to cheer them up, with sentences like "Oh, how cute", and "Isn't it wonderful, how nature works?", and "C'mon, baby, you're doing it!". Remember to keep a phone anywhere near, just in case he faints and you have to call 112. :mrgreen:

It's not just a 'red in tooth and claw' thing, and it's not something against us. It's indeed something that we feel as the most wonderful thing, the cycle of life, the birth. And it's not like those parasitic wasps that kill a caterpillar in the process: there's no one suffering, no dead, no harm; it's just how toads work. But most of them probably will find it disgusting. Unnatural, indeed.

Natural hypocrisy is not just about those things that threaten us or other beings. It also involves those things that are completely neutral and irrelevant for us. Just different.

 

[Andiferous]

Sure. Since we've got the superior morality and the superior ability to cope with adversity, why don't we just move into tunnels underground and take extra D vitamins, leaving the surface to the species who require that natural habitat for survival?

It's not all about what we require. The universe does not revolve around our particular needs and requests. If we've developed a superior kind of "morality" and choose to be proud of that, we ought to at least demonstrate it by recognising the consciousness and value of other living creatures, and not using them as means of our own selfish advancement.

It has been argued that without domestication, horses may have gone extinct a very long time ago. I also rather wonder about the fate of other domesticated and specially bred animals, like cows, chickens. We've been responsible for specialising their genes to our livestock needs and I don't think they could survive with us, either. It's a bit sad.

Yes, they are dependent on us; as many creatures may become in the future.

I think you believe I have a romantic view of nature from my previous posts. I do not. I avoid tents and am the type to prefer the running water and modern convenience option.

However, I am quite mindful that my life is of no more value than that of any animal I meet; so I do feel a stab of conscience when realising that I or others of my kind are taking unfair advantage of them, or threatening their entire species. And quite honestly, it makes me believe we are of no superior morality, and it makes me somewhat ashamed to be a human being.

Superior morality comes with responsibility. Knowledge comes with responsibility. Science comes with responsibility.

 

[Unwardil]

You put your finger on it though, the universe doesn't revolve around us.

But we have the ability to create a very small portion of it that does that precisely.

And I'm not talking about harnessing other semi sentient life for our own ends, no, I'm talking about absolving ourselves from all of that. I'm talking about total control over our own means. No longer relying on the planet's fickle ecosystems to provide us with sustenance or breathable air or drinkable water but to make a monopoly over our entire existence. I even think we could do it better, more efficiently and cheaper than simply relying on nature to take care of it too.

I'm saying this is not only desirable for us but for all our pettitized symbiotic animal friends as well. Everything else, well, that's the cruel mother nature for you.

 

[Andiferous]

You realise, if this is true, we don't think much differently.

I believe nature should be preserved and conserved because it is the habitat, home and environment of all of the thousands of other species that have arisen on this planet; not because I think nature is a superior state of being for humanity. I believe if we have that extraordinary power to make or break nature, we also have the responsibility to weigh the consequences and be guardians of the ecosystem. Perhaps yes, it would be better if we developed our own means of survival without dependence taking advantage of other species. I can agree with that.

I'd rather humanity imploded rather than sacrificing every other creature on the planet for its own benefit, and this may sound very cold, but it's the utilitarian in me.

Just give everything else a chance to evolve, to develop, to live their lives. If we're so wonderful, shouldn't be that hard to find a way...

 

[PAB]

'I'd say our morality is superior to nature given that nature doesn't have any morals.' ;

not that i disagree, but i think this is skewed slightly. how can 'our' morality be superior to a morality that doesn't exist. there's a difference here between the phenomena (our subjective experience) and the noumena (things truly as they are). 'Morality' is Of the Phenomena, by its very sign and language concept. This doesn't go to say that it is just a human fantasy, or illusion. but there is a morality in 'nature' of animal relations, although it may not be conducted and self-conscious, but rather rules of conduct and inherited behaviour patterns, our superiority and difference is part of the Phenomena of the subjective perspective.(self-consciousness)

'but it should also be our goal not to emulate it but to surpass it in every conceivable way.'

What is beyond nature ? Metaphysics?
when you say 'emulate', there is a connotation which is problematic that of rivalry. The imitation of the world around us is not optional, it is required and has been the process of human civilization, to 'surpass' implies a transcendence out of physical existence.....so i should'nt have to explain why that's bullshizle. The problematic connotation or rivalry, of 'us' against 'nature', presents a false dialectic. Human civilization hasn't been a conscious nor unconscious attack on the world around us, its rather , subtle problem solving in relation to the condition of being a human being, (not necessarily the transcendence of being a human, although religion was a major motivator)

'Atheists especially are guilty of this, that they berate theists for believing in a God who can make so many obvious fuck ups in his design, yet at the same time marvel at how well nature works by it's self. Well which is it, is nature just fine by it's self or does it actually leave quite a lot to be desired? All human actions suggest we think the later.'

The desire, imagination , and wants are linked back to and in relation to nature. Rather than out there and purely separate to nature. The atheistic evaluation of god as supreme being, who fucks up alot is a valid argument on the position of 'your god is a being of your imagination'. God seems to have so many human flaws, not because he made men in his image but that men made god in theirs.
in terms of nature working by itself, the distinction of humanity as self-conscious beings compared to 'nature' can also be brought back to home. Our organs and biological process, alot of which operate separate from our self -conscious 'will'. So in distinguishing nature as separate in any Noumenal sense (any real valid sense), would you not have to distinguish the human body as natural and the mind as not so natural ...with hints of a metaphysic spiritual entity, which is bullshizle.

'Humans have been playing God ever since they came down from the trees and we've thrived as a result to such a great degree that we are now our own worst enemy. Nothing else on the planet has the potential to inflict any harm on us in any major capacity, not as a species anyway, except for ourselves'

Humans haven't been playing God at all. For a start the idea of god's a creator didn't properly appear until Ancient Egypt and Sumer. Before which there was the Great Mother, in terms of the birth giver, the giver of life, in which there was a correlation with females and their womb as having power. The connection is more rational than 'playing god' (religion has only been playing science).
we do have the power do annihilate our own species apocalyptically , which is interesting as science has realised the theocratic idea of gods ultimate judgement, or threat.

'Because we can control every step of the process'

We do have the skills, and know how over a long process of development (human civilization ) to do alot, to understand the process and mechanics of atoms and chemical compounds deduced from existing organic and in-organic complex's. But we cant control every step of the process for everything (not yet). This isn't a process of becoming separate from nature , overcoming nature, being better than nature. Science isn't the process of conquering nature but understanding it, the application of knowledge isn't mastering, the reason its so important is that we are natural beings, with the awareness of its own state to a phenomenal degree.

 

[PAB]

some more nature for you

 

[Unwardil]

On the morality:

What I actually meant was that morality (any) is generally better than amorality which is how the natural world behaves. Always remembering of course that for the purposes of this thread, I'm using the world nature to refer to things that are not man made or influenced by man's conscious will. The bacteria in our intestines is influenced by man, obviously, but not on a conscious level and is therefore still natural. The breeding of horses is not natural as the breeders have something specific in mind when they breed the horses. This is obviously not a true definition of nature.

So when I say we should look to improve on the natural world in every conceivable way, I mean that we should make use of all the things that the natural (none human) world has failed to evolve natural for what ever reason. A very basic example of this is steel and concrete. Neither are biological and neither have been incorporated into the systems of any living organism on earth, nor can they develop naturally (without human control) yet we use the two all the time (often together for better strength) in order to do all kinds of things which benefit us in many ways. This is what I mean by improving on nature. We can build bridges out of wood, or we can build them out of concrete and steel. I say, why stop there, there's got to be something even better.

Apply the same kind of thing the the atheist comment and that should eliminate the need for any transcendentalism which as you so correctly point out is bull shizzle. I'm only talking about manipulating the natural world (the real one) in ways which are more beneficial to life than evolution has ever been able to come up with on it's own. Overcoming the limitations of the system out of which we have evolved is the goal. It may be true (almost certainly is) that things do evolve by natural selection, but do we actually want that for ourselves? Do we want to let chaos theory and the cold amoral universe guide our destiny? I propose we do not. We don't act like this is what we want, yet, we still see nature (none human) as something that is good and pure, when actually, in the macroscopic sense, it's actively trying to kill us.

 

[PAB]

Can you elaborate on how 'nature' is trying to kill us 'actively' on a macroscopic sense ?

 

[Unwardil]

Meteors flying around occasionally crashing into the planet and killing everything. Viruses and bacteria that that pray on other organisms, hurricanes, earth quakes etc etc. It's not CONSCIOUSLY trying to kill us, but there are an awful lot of natural obstacles standing in the way of anything that wants to just, you know, live for any length of time.

 

[PAB]

well in the abstract definition of nature, nature then is actively destroying itself , because if that meteor hits the rainforest, its possibly untouched by human activities. then you cant claim that nature is actively destructive, to humans.

 

[Unwardil]

Well, nature is hazardous to life then. Humans are, broadly speaking, (and specifically) alive, ergo, nature is hazardous to humans.

Which is why I say it's not just selfishness to try and remove the threat from natural hazards. All the life with which we are symbiotic would also benefit. We might not be able to stop meteors crashing into the planet, but I bet we could build habitats that could keep us living in perfect comfort and luxury regardless of what massive ecological damage the meteor would cause. All farming wiped out? Big deal, tomatoes in mine shafts baby, but what I also say is why wait until a meteor forces our hands. Let's be proactive about it.

 

[PAB]

Yep, we should be proactive. to eliminate the dangers of annihilation of humanity , not necessarily so we can live in peace, luxury etc.

But what your proposing is cosmological order, its not impossible, but if humanity makes it, its going to have to be able to sort out the death of the solar system(sun) , and if the universe is of finite existence and we have a implosion of a universe we also have to sort that out.

But again, im trying to illuminate the false war. As nature as the other, as the enemy. It's not to defeat nature. The two poles of this are hippy, eco-maniacs who love mother earth, and those who see nature as some 'other' outside of ourselves which we must defeat, and get rid of its evils.

 

[Unwardil]

I don't see the contradiction though, in eliminating the dangers inherent in existence, we also make life better for everyone in the process. It's win win. Nature needn't even be sacrificed to achieve this, we simply remove ourselves from it by building self contained environments where we control all input and output. Power them with orbital solar collectors, build them tough enough to withstand the harshest of elements, internalize their food production and atmospheric controls and you'd have the perfect human habitat. Then we could leave nature to nature without interfering with it at all.


Yet, when I present this idea to hippie eco-maniacs I get nothing but knee jerk rejection.

 

[Andiferous]

On the morality:

So when I say we should look to improve on the natural world in every conceivable way, I mean that we should make use of all the things that the natural (none human) world has failed to evolve natural for what ever reason. A very basic example of this is steel and concrete. Neither are biological and neither have been incorporated into the systems of any living organism on earth, nor can they develop naturally (without human control) yet we use the two all the time (often together for better strength) in order to do all kinds of things which benefit us in many ways. This is what I mean by improving on nature. We can build bridges out of wood, or we can build them out of concrete and steel. I say, why stop there, there's got to be something even better.

Quick question; I don't think you're suggesting that we should rebuild and redesign the natural ecosystem for the planet - but I just want to clarify? Is it accurate to say that you argue that there's no moral obstacle for humanity to modify its own environment- when not infringing or damaging the balance of nature that exists independently of our civilisation? Not that you support usurping and mad scientisting the natural world and replacing it with a human invention?

I'm not sure this is really spelled out in your post. I

 

[Unwardil]

No, not rebuild the current ecosystem, build a separate one. One that actually DOES have humanities interests in mind, if not exclusively.

Big city sized biospheres that are fully self sufficient, powered by space based solar power into which nothing can enter which is not permitted and out of which escapes no emissions of any kind. Environmentally inert structures. Obviously not absolutely isolated and people and goods would have to travel freely between these, but broadly speaking, industry would have to pipe all emissions to a reclamator which would either change any harmful gasses back into an inert substance or be used for some other process elsewhere. Same thing with all solid and liquid waste for that matter. One person's trash is another's gold after all.

Nothing gets in that is unwanted and nothing gets out. That's what I'm talking about. Then you can leave nature to nature and we can get on with living better fuller and longer lives in greater luxury and prosperity.

 

[Andiferous]

On some levels I understand, but on others, I really am truly perplexed.

I like the idea of putting humans in a safe little place so that the rest of the planet can develop naturally.

But, while I am horribly tempted by the idea of eternal luxury in so many ways.... I do cringe a bit to imagine what would happen to future generations if we did follow this course of action.

Our species evolved over millions upon millions of years, society evolves much quicker; and the generational gap is enormous. I'm not sure we're doing anyone any service by taking away future generations' opportunity for experiencing and learning and challenging themselves. Making future generations overly comfortable, humanity has no reason to do either, and at some point of spoilage humanity will evolve to mindless lazy lumps. And I really think that the whole process won't see any improvement in happiness. :twisted:

 

[Unwardil]

In terms of a kind of metaphysical happiness quotient, no, I think people always gravitate to a certain level of happiness. Happiness on it's own is not a good measure for quality of life however which is why you look for things like life expectancy (both mean and average) instead, things which can be measured mathematically. Infant mortality, cost of living as a percentage of total wealth, all these things while they don't necessarily mean a person is happier it does suggest their life is of greater quality and it would be very difficult to imagine how all those things would go down if they were living most in an environment perfectly suited to their physical needs and was powered entirely by free power from the sun.

I'm also not convinced it would lead to a decadent and complacent society because it's really like the species would be growing up. All the things that we currently rely on nature to do for us we'd be in control of and that's a lot of responsibility. It also requires a vast amount of technical expertise, which would require the population be well educated and technically proficient in order to maintain the civilization. Great pay off, but great responsibility as well.

 

[ExplorerAtHeart]

Humanity is Nature trying to develop a sentience to preserve and spread the biosphere. We are doing ok, Humanity is a constantly evolving entity. There will be rough spots and errors along the way.