The General Chat Room

[vinteuil]

Are humans not part of nature too?

... that question leads directly to my belief that "natural" is a word that should be avoided. It is far too ambiguous.

For some it means "that which exists".
For some that means "everything which exists"
For some that means "everything which exists apart from humans / human influences"

For some it means "that which ought to exist". [ ... and what "ought" might mean here is a whole other subject.... ]

And of course for marketing people "natural" just means "nice: buy it!"

The only unambiguous sense it might have wd be "everything apart from humans / human influences".

But in another sense, as M l' Amateur indicates, humans "are" (or "should be"? - ambiguities again! ) - "part of nature".

Altogether a word to be eschewed as not being very helpful. Like the word "god"...

[Dave2002]

Yes! Quite a few! Including Wakehurst Place.

Some more here - http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/cs/S...&ssbinary=true

Wakehurst is good, also Sheffield Park.

[Serial_Apologist]

But in another sense, as M l' Amateur indicates, humans "are" (or "should be"? - ambiguities again! ) - "part of nature".

Western philosophies and religions do not see us that way though. When I replied to this same quesion in a job interview, saying I did think of us as part of nature, the interviewer then asked me, "What? Are you some sort of eco-Buddhist?" To which I replied that that was probably just about right. According to Alan Watts, in "The Way of Zen", many problems stem from our Judaeo-Christian based assumption of separation from not just species further down the evolutionary chain, but the very "ground of being" itself, "God", the "Atman" or soul of the universe, or Lovelock's "Gaia" - with further assumption of God-ordained responsibility for being in charge inculcating a mindset of control. Watts explained the commonly misinterpreted work "Karma" as not meaning Fate as such but the human fate of having to go on interfering in the natural order, having started doing so very early on, to try and maintain the ecological balance we need to keep going as a species. A very good example, in woodland management, would be "plagio-climax management", in which, far from leaving it all alone for nature to put things right, humans coppice and chop down trees, because not to do so would lead to invasive species dominating, owing to the "mistake" of humans not understanding (or having forgotten how to understand) natural succession so as to be able to live with it sustainably for ourselves and all other species. Karma in this context means trying to rectify the earlier mistake by interfering in such a way as to artificially ensure the continuance of the natural succession so as to optimise the range and number of species which would otherwise be reduced by non-interference.

There used to be a slogan, "You are what you eat"; one could extend this and say we are what we breathe, we are one with our environment. We'd be much happier as a species if we accepted this as step one for our lives, and stopped having hangups about our "lower selves", supposed atavistic traits inherited from the swamp; and then the only problems remaining would be political ones.

[amateur51]

Western philosophies and religions do not see us that way though. When I replied to this same quesion in a job interview, saying I did think of us as part of nature, the interviewer then asked me, "What? Are you some sort of eco-Buddhist?" To which I replied that that was probably just about right. According to Alan Watts, in "The Way of Zen", many problems stem from our Judaeo-Christian based assumption of separation from not just species further down the evolutionary chain, but the very "ground of being" itself, "God", the "Atman" or soul of the universe, or Lovelock's "Gaia" - with further assumption of God-ordained responsibility for being in charge inculcating a mindset of control. Watts explained the commonly misinterpreted work "Karma" as not meaning Fate as such but the human fate of having to go on interfering in the natural order, having started doing so very early on, to try and maintain the ecological balance we need to keep going as a species. A very good example, in woodland management, would be "plagio-climax management", in which, far from leaving it all alone for nature to put things right, humans coppice and chop down trees, because not to do so would lead to invasive species dominating, owing to the "mistake" of humans not understanding (or having forgotten how to understand) natural succession so as to be able to live with it sustainably for ourselves and all other species. Karma in this context means trying to rectify the earlier mistake by interfering in such a way as to artificially ensure the continuance of the natural succession so as to optimise the range and number of species which would otherwise be reduced by non-interference.

There used to be a slogan, "You are what you eat"; one could extend this and say we are what we breathe, we are one with our environment. We'd be much happier as a species if we accepted this as step one for our lives, and stopped having hangups about our "lower selves", supposed atavistic traits inherited from the swamp; and then the only problems remaining would be political ones.

Intriguing ponder-worthy stuff, S_A - many thanks

[eighthobstruction]

Yes S-A ....What was the job you were applying for, aide de camp for the Dali Lama ....???

[eighthobstruction]

Are humans not part of nature too?

Better not tell you what I think....

[BBMmk2]

Some more here - http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/cs/S...&ssbinary=true

Wakehurst is good, also Sheffield Park.

Thank you for that Dave! We went to Sheffield park. We have been before but the weather wasnt as good as today, so we were able to walk in the parkland, and picnic too! They have a brewery there too!

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes S-A ....What was the job you were applying for, aide de camp for the Dali Lama ....???

More like for the local deli Actually I was fishing for a job in one of the community forests. Didn't get one - but they liked my photos.

[EdgeleyRob]

I dunno; but they have to pay £12 to go past the checkout at Tesco.

Black with white stripes. This is because the 'natural' state is a coat with pigment (in this case, black), whereas the white stripes lack the pigmentation, showing them to be a mutant form.

I knew someone on here would know,thanks Pab.

[Pabmusic]

...Altogether a word to be eschewed as not being very helpful. Like the word "god"...

I don't agree. You are defining the word out of existence by giving every possible definition equal weight. In the end everything is either created by nature or by man (who is of course created by nature) - so everything is natural, Q.E.D.. Well, you can do that, but to what point? It seems to me that 'natural' is used most usefully in contrast with something that is a product of human brains. Those brains are indeed natural, but their products are usually not (except in the above broadest, least useful sense).

Non-natural things (such as cutting tools, arrows or computers) are themselves evidence of the existence of brains able to conceive and direct their construction. Natural things (such as trees, cuckoos and norovirus) are not. This seems to me a distinction well worth preserving.

[Edit]

Perhaps the answer is to be careful to define your meaning when you use the word 'natural' (not always necessary, of course, since the context is usually obvious; ours are special circumstances, though - chat room intellectuals about whom no assumptions can be made ). This is particularly so with 'god', since there are almost as many definitions as people who believe (which explains why any particular criticism of a god never seems to accord with the individual listener's belief - "but that's not my god).

[Pabmusic]

Western philosophies and religions do not see us that way though...According to Alan Watts, in "The Way of Zen", many problems stem from our Judaeo-Christian based assumption of separation from not just species further down the evolutionary chain, but the very "ground of being" itself, "God", the "Atman" or soul of the universe, or Lovelock's "Gaia" - with further assumption of God-ordained responsibility for being in charge inculcating a mindset of control...to the "mistake" of humans not understanding (or having forgotten how to understand) natural succession so as to be able to live with it sustainably for ourselves and all other species.

Some very good points. There is no doubt that Genesis records that Man is given dominion over nature, and that this probably delayed any real understanding of natural selection before Darwin and Wallace (although farmers and husbanders of animals understood the principles rather better than most). Even today, many people interpret evolution as the progressive betterment of a species towards a goal of perfection. (It is of course the adaptation of life to the environment of the moment - the measure is one of adequacy, not perfection.) God's gift to Adam of dominion over nature has been cited many times in the US by politicians arguing about mankind's effect on the environment - including in formal debates in Congress. "God gave the planet to us to do with as we wish" is not so far from the thrust of these arguments.

What people have ignored (or more realistically, not understood) is that it is the 'natural' lot of species to become extinct. Our immediate forebears all became extinct (homo habilis, for instance) to be replaced eventually by the latter model of homo sapiens, but in a sense that is not 'extinction' as much as the replacement of older models with newer, and it's a continuous process - our (generally useful) habit of labelling different types is not helpful to understanding that we exist on a continuous spectrum. But all lines of descent on the hominid side from our common ancestor with chimpanzees went extinct - and there were at least six or seven, best-known being homo neandertalensis. Except for us, that is; and the population of early homo sapiens dropped to 10,000 or so some 70,000 years ago, which is why it can properly be said that on average any two humans picked at random from different places in the world will be more alike than any two chimpanzees from the same jungle. Our most recent common ancestor was the one we shared with neanderthals about half a million years ago (as opposed to the one we shared with chimpanzees some 5-6 million years ago). But the neanderthal line is extinct, so we tend to concentrate on the common ancestor with chimpanzees, whose descendants are not extinct.

Seen in this way, we begin to understand just how precarious existence is. Coupled with the knowledge we now have that all living things seem to be related (that is, they share common ancestors if you go back far enough) we can see that Buddhist philosophies share striking parallels with scientific understanding. The spiritual dimension (not present in all Buddhism) is a difference, if 'spiritual' implies anything supernatural. But then, things are only supernatural until we have an explanation for them - they then become 'natural'. Helios no longer hitches his chariot to the sun to pull it across the sky. If there are explanations to be found, we may find them one day.

Now I'm going to eat an apple - a distant cousin of mine, of course, but what do I care?

[Dave2002]

Thank you for that Dave! We went to Sheffield park. We have been before but the weather wasnt as good as today, so we were able to walk in the parkland, and picnic too! They have a brewery there too!

Glad you enjoyed it. I didn't know about the brewery. Did you sample the products? Any good?

[teamsaint]

Some very good points. There is no doubt that Genesis records that Man is given dominion over nature, and that this probably delayed any real understanding of natural selection before Darwin and Wallace (although farmers and husbanders of animals understood the principles rather better than most). Even today, many people interpret evolution as the progressive betterment of a species towards a goal of perfection. (It is of course the adaptation of life to the environment of the moment - the measure is one of adequacy, not perfection.) God's gift to Adam of dominion over nature has been cited many times in the US by politicians arguing about mankind's effect on the environment - including in formal debates in Congress. "God gave the planet to us to do with as we wish" is not so far from the thrust of these arguments.

What people have ignored (or more realistically, not understood) is that it is the 'natural' lot of species to become extinct. Our immediate forebears all became extinct (homo habilis, for instance) to be replaced eventually by the latter model of homo sapiens, but in a sense that is not 'extinction' as much as the replacement of older models with newer, and it's a continuous process - our (generally useful) habit of labelling different types is not helpful to understanding that we exist on a continuous spectrum. But all lines of descent on the hominid side from our common ancestor with chimpanzees went extinct - and there were at least six or seven, best-known being homo neandertalensis. Except for us, that is; and the population of early homo sapiens dropped to 10,000 or so some 70,000 years ago, which is why it can properly be said that on average any two humans picked at random from different places in the world will be more alike than any two chimpanzees from the same jungle. Our most recent common ancestor was the one we shared with neanderthals about half a million years ago (as opposed to the one we shared with chimpanzees some 5-6 million years ago). But the neanderthal line is extinct, so we tend to concentrate on the common ancestor with chimpanzees, whose descendants are not extinct.

Seen in this way, we begin to understand just how precarious existence is. Coupled with the knowledge we now have that all living things seem to be related (that is, they share common ancestors if you go back far enough) we can see that Buddhist philosophies share striking parallels with scientific understanding. The spiritual dimension (not present in all Buddhism) is a difference, if 'spiritual' implies anything supernatural. But then, things are only supernatural until we have an explanation for them - they then become 'natural'. Helios no longer hitches his chariot to the sun to pull it across the sky. If there are explanations to be found, we may find them one day.

Now I'm going to eat an apple - a distant cousin of mine, of course, but what do I care?

Very interesting stuff.
Hope that Apple isn't a Granny Smith.!

[greenilex]

Dear boarders,

You are all absolute naturals (except for me, I'm sharp).

[MrGongGong]