Yes. We can alter the composition of the atmosphere, create synthetic virus's, genetically modified organisms, clone sheep, create nuclear waste, toxins etc...
So you do think that humans can act unnaturally. Where did we learn these unnatural ways? Have any other species learned to act unnaturally?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Humans are the only species who have awareness of their own actions and of the consequences of such actions. This ability, along with our ability to reason is unique among all life on the planet. Such ability evolved for a reason, to meet our specific purposes.
It is our mammalian brain that our compassion and empathy comes from. As the name suggests, mammals have this capacity. It is humans, however, who developed beyond emotions and have reasoning ability--we can reason about what to do with our compassion and empathy in order to create more constructively. It may not be normal in nature, yet it looks like such ability has evolved for a normal-for-humans reason.
what is reason?
you're not saying we are the only species with the ability to reason are you?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
ok... hmmm trying to articulate what I'm thinking. Angelica I think you might be closer along the lines to what I'm trying to say. I don't think the examples provided are natural because they involve manipulation and distortion of things that are natural therefore creating things that would not be under ordinary circumstances.
Where did we learn these unnatural actions and do other species act unnaturally? Well, we learned how to do these things through science and trial and error. No I don't believe any other species acts unnaturally. There is no parallel or even vague example of other species mimicking any of these acts.
Where did we learn these unnatural actions and do other species act unnaturally? Well, we learned how to do these things through science and trial and error. No I don't believe any other species acts unnaturally. There is no parallel or even vague example of other species mimicking any of these acts.
Are you saying the study of science is unnatural? If so, is this an endeavour we should outlaw?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I believe that I'm a spaceship. How's that working out for me?
Well, if you believe you're onboard a spaceship called earth, it should work out fine. And the point again is not believing makes physically true. It's about theoretical and conceptual beliefs about things that are not hard physical things. Such as our role in nature. You cant verify "but you're wrong" in that case. Me believing myself to be an orange and then becoming one is of course absurd.
That's new to me.
I thought I maybe had gone into it before, but I'll give the quick rundown on the concept of "second nature". I think the source is "the dialectic of the enlightenment" by Adorno & Horkheimer.
First, humans are subject to nature and it's unpredictability. We have little ability to influence it, and are at the mercy of weather and other circumstances in the nature around us. We have to adapt to and accept the effects of nature on our lives. Then we have the enlightenment and the coming of the modern age (modern meaning more specifically a time-period and certain developments, rather than in the understanding of "new"). Man starts to control nature to lessen the impacts of the whims of nature. Which is what science is all about. Controlling and harnessing nature. Through this process the unpredictability and uncertainty of nature can be reduced and perhaps all done away with and give humans full control. This is the vision of the enlightenment and the industrial age (the modern age) up to about the world wars.
Now here is where second nature enters as a concept. When we get these huge complex societies with complex economic systems and myriad branches of science and so on, it may seem that the control is slipping again. But this time not due to the uncertainty and unpredictability of nature, but due to our own systems and institutions being unpredictable and uncertain. Thus we are under a "second nature" where we again dont have control over our surroundings, but this time in the manmade surroundings themselves. This concept has been utilized by many, especially when it comes to pollution, toxins in food and otherwise, medicine and so on. The world is not essentially any more under our control than it used to be long ago, but the risks we are running are now increasingly manmade rather than of nature.
Did I succeed in getting that across?
This was then meant as a comment to the "we're in control of our surroundings" statement, that I don't agree with without qualifications.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Sourdough, you seem to be of the understanding that natural is a state without humans or human intervention, int he way many environmental agencies think about it. Humans are very much part of nature, and anything we do are part of nature. Nature always changes, have disasters and so on (arguably we can be one).
Now just because things are not unnatural, doesn't mean they can't be wrong or bad according to our perceptions and values. But natural/unnatural is not what's at stake. It's plain old good/bad judgements. For instance, it is nothing against nature to scorch most of the world with nukes, as they operate by the laws of physics. However, I would certainly call it bad, and not good for us humans (and most other life).
Environmentalism is first and foremost a venture to save ourselves, not "the planet" or "nature". Both will always be there, but we can fuck them up to a point where we cannot be part of it, and destroy the world as a human habitat. That's what's at stake most often. So we have to be careful, certainly.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I totally agree. I figure it better like a cancer. At the beginning maybe we were part of the same organism, but then a particular cell, the humankind, has gone mad. So the cancer is destroying itself and its natural environment by its same hands. Maybe it all was already in its DNA. But I trust in nature. Nature always finds its antibodies against any threat.
Sourdough, you seem to be of the understanding that natural is a state without humans or human intervention, int he way many environmental agencies think about it. Humans are very much part of nature, and anything we do are part of nature. Nature always changes, have disasters and so on (arguably we can be one).
Now just because things are not unnatural, doesn't mean they can't be wrong or bad according to our perceptions and values. But natural/unnatural is not what's at stake. It's plain old good/bad judgements. For instance, it is nothing against nature to scorch most of the world with nukes, as they operate by the laws of physics. However, I would certainly call it bad, and not good for us humans (and most other life).
Environmentalism is first and foremost a venture to save ourselves, not "the planet" or "nature". Both will always be there, but we can fuck them up to a point where we cannot be part of it, and destroy the world as a human habitat. That's what's at stake most often. So we have to be careful, certainly.
Sourdough, you seem to be of the understanding that natural is a state without humans or human intervention, int he way many environmental agencies think about it. Humans are very much part of nature, and anything we do are part of nature. Nature always changes, have disasters and so on (arguably we can be one).
Now just because things are not unnatural, doesn't mean they can't be wrong or bad according to our perceptions and values. But natural/unnatural is not what's at stake. It's plain old good/bad judgements. For instance, it is nothing against nature to scorch most of the world with nukes, as they operate by the laws of physics. However, I would certainly call it bad, and not good for us humans (and most other life).
Environmentalism is first and foremost a venture to save ourselves, not "the planet" or "nature". Both will always be there, but we can fuck them up to a point where we cannot be part of it, and destroy the world as a human habitat. That's what's at stake most often. So we have to be careful, certainly.
Peace
Dan
Well, forgive me if I semplify the beautiful debate with Sourdough and Angelica... I'd wish badly to say that humans are simply silly. But this may take misunderstandings, so I have to get into the serious debate.... I think humans are not unnatural, they have simply lost contact with nature and the awareness of being a "natural" element connected with the environment. I don't agree with Angelica this time about "awareness". Individual awareness, within a social and cultural context, is one thing. The basic "species awareness" in another thing. Humans have less "species awareness" than any other species since they are no longer respecting the natural balance of the same environement that allows them to survive. This means that they are no longer aware of their "being part of nature". All the living species have such in-built awareness, we have lost it completely. Is such loss "natural"??? "natural" to me it is not anything occurring. "natural" to me is something that has to do with an original and necessary balance to life. When such original balance necessary to life is broken, something "artificial" occurs. So, humans are still natural being, a product of nature. But their evolution and actions and products have become unnatural 'cause of the social and intellectual evolution it has taken. In short, I think we are a weird "mistake" of nature, exactly like a cancer.
Some serious question for you. What is our role in nature? Are we here to protect the existance of other species? Are we currently acting in any way that is unnatural for us? Can humans act unnaturally?
From what I've seen in nature every species domiates to the extent it can without a care for consequences. This is the natural order of the world from what I have learned. Humans are the only species who try to act outside this model by caring about the short and long term consequences. Is this normal in nature?
Water is the essence of life. Humans continue to lay down concrete and other impervious soils, causing enormous increase in water surface runoff in the watersheds, which leads to more frequent bank shaping channel events, which causes erosion and unstability of streams, which leads to in stream habitat reduction and nutrification of the streams, which leads to loss of fish and other aquatic habitat, which begins to break down the food chain....definitely not "natural"....
Cheers,
NEWAGEHIPPIE
Keep your eyes open, eventually something will happen....
ok... hmmm trying to articulate what I'm thinking. Angelica I think you might be closer along the lines to what I'm trying to say. I don't think the examples provided are natural because they involve manipulation and distortion of things that are natural therefore creating things that would not be under ordinary circumstances.
Where did we learn these unnatural actions and do other species act unnaturally? Well, we learned how to do these things through science and trial and error. No I don't believe any other species acts unnaturally. There is no parallel or even vague example of other species mimicking any of these acts.
I think in essence I understand what you are saying, and I agree. Even though we are acting within our natural ability, we are doing things that are not in harmony with nature, and therefore we create ramifications that echo forth that we must deal with. When we step out of synch with that harmony, we will be forced to learn the hard way.
I believe a big part of the problem regarding science is that we have become quite technologically advanced, and yet many individual humans still have not come to develop their own personal values systems. This includes our scientists. People accept the tribal mindset and the accepted group ideas without question. Many people objectify themselves by striving to be only objective. The goal must be to develop a healthy subjective self that is capable of comprehending what is objective and then melding the two. If one tunes out their own direct inner feelings when making decisions, ones tunes out their unique individual understandings of their surroundings and loses conscious touch with their natural connection to nature. In order for us to be able to make personally responsible decisions on a mass scale, we must awaken our feelings and our direct inner understandings. By doing so, we become aligned to nature and natural responsibility. When we do so to a mass degree, our scientific advances, among others, will be naturally in synch with the life around us.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects
are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
god-fearing and pious: Aristotle
From what I've seen in nature every species domiates to the extent it can without a care for consequences.
i disagree with this ... many species live their lives in a sustainable way - in many cases, it is because of humans that they are unable to ...
humans role in nature is to ensure the preservation of our species - what people fail to realize is that ensuring our preservation also means the preservation of every other species ... we are interconnected - if we start to lose species - there are consequences ...
similarily with the environment - what kind of planet are we leaving our children and for that matter the rest of the world ... previous generations have left us with toxic waste and now we see cancer rates skyrocketing ... and current generations are leaving worse things ... so, in the end - we are not only endangering many species in this world we are ultimately endangering ourselves ...
what is reason?
you're not saying we are the only species with the ability to reason are you?
What I specifically said was:
"Humans are the only species who have awareness of their own actions and of the consequences of such actions. This ability, along with our ability to reason is unique among all life on the planet."
It is my understanding that humans are the only animals who consider, ponder and reflect on their choices and actions at this time. I'm under the impression that it is only humans who can comprehend their mortality consciously and make choices based on such reflection. I'm of the understanding that animals sense things and respond based on conditioning, and act on that. Also instinct drives animals to act out numerous behaviours. I'm not aware of any information indicating that at this time animals can consider their circumstances and then come up with a game plan to rise about such circumstances. If you have information that does indicate this, I would love to hear it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Humans have less "species awareness" than any other species since they are no longer respecting the natural balance of the same environement that allows them to survive. This means that they are no longer aware of their "being part of nature". All the living species have such in-built awareness, we have lost it completely. Is such loss "natural"??? "natural" to me it is not anything occurring. "natural" to me is something that has to do with an original and necessary balance to life. When such original balance necessary to life is broken, something "artificial" occurs. So, humans are still natural being, a product of nature. But their evolution and actions and products have become unnatural 'cause of the social and intellectual evolution it has taken. In short, I think we are a weird "mistake" of nature, exactly like a cancer.
I think it depends on how one looks at "mistakes" of nature. I believe it is by our mistakes that we learn and grow and evolve, so therefore I see "mistakes" as a natural evolutionary mechanism. And I therefore view mistakes as necessary for when we get off of track--acknowledging our mistakes and learning from them is the key to getting ourselves back on track.
I agree that humans have generally lost touch with acting as a harmonised part of nature. I don't believe we have done so completely. It is our conscious awareness of being one with nature that we've lost. However, our conscious awareness--our ego--is a very small part of who we actually are. We operate unconsciously all the time. This happens especially when we are ignorant to the consequences of our actions. We sabotoge our own selves unconsciously all the time when we continue to remain ignorant of the ramifications of our choice. This is why most people are in a paralysed, impotent state. The small part of who they think they are is being overrun by the whole of who they are below the surface. Therefore we don't make any scientific advances we cannot support at this time. We won't generate, much less elect healthy, responsible leaders, at this time. We can't accumulate the power, money, etc. that we hope to in order to make our dreams come true on a mass level at this time. On a deep inner level we're kicking our own feet out from under ourselves in an effort to wake ourselves up to our lack of balance with our surroundings. Despite what we think, evolution and nature remains wonderfully in charge and operating in ways we can barely fathom.
The majority of who we are is unconscious--we each have our own inner sleeping beauty--waiting for us to cut through the dense, tangled inner brush of the years of our sleep, to offer our first kiss of awakening. We can go beyond identifying with the part of us that has been created by what we've been taught. We can start to open up to who we ARE as a whole. It is when we learn to harmonise with who we truly are in nature that we will reap the rewards and come to create with ease and abundance.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Sourdough, you seem to be of the understanding that natural is a state without humans or human intervention, int he way many environmental agencies think about it. Humans are very much part of nature, and anything we do are part of nature. Nature always changes, have disasters and so on (arguably we can be one).
Now just because things are not unnatural, doesn't mean they can't be wrong or bad according to our perceptions and values. But natural/unnatural is not what's at stake. It's plain old good/bad judgements. For instance, it is nothing against nature to scorch most of the world with nukes, as they operate by the laws of physics. However, I would certainly call it bad, and not good for us humans (and most other life).
Environmentalism is first and foremost a venture to save ourselves, not "the planet" or "nature". Both will always be there, but we can fuck them up to a point where we cannot be part of it, and destroy the world as a human habitat. That's what's at stake most often. So we have to be careful, certainly.
Peace
Dan
Yes, well said and I'm inclined to agree with you. Wait... I'll mull it over for a bit more, but okay, that sounds reasonable and I understand what you're saying. (See? Not all Environmentalists are hard-headed )
If I agree with the second premise (humans do not act unnaturally), we can still agree that although an act can be natural, it does not justify the act as acceptable.
Sourdough, you seem to be of the understanding that natural is a state without humans or human intervention, int he way many environmental agencies think about it. Humans are very much part of nature, and anything we do are part of nature. Nature always changes, have disasters and so on (arguably we can be one).
Now just because things are not unnatural, doesn't mean they can't be wrong or bad according to our perceptions and values. But natural/unnatural is not what's at stake. It's plain old good/bad judgements. For instance, it is nothing against nature to scorch most of the world with nukes, as they operate by the laws of physics. However, I would certainly call it bad, and not good for us humans (and most other life).
Environmentalism is first and foremost a venture to save ourselves, not "the planet" or "nature". Both will always be there, but we can fuck them up to a point where we cannot be part of it, and destroy the world as a human habitat. That's what's at stake most often. So we have to be careful, certainly.
Peace
Dan
Yes, well said and I'm inclined to agree with you. Wait... I'll mull it over for a bit more, but okay, that sounds reasonable and I understand what you're saying. (See? Not all Environmentalists are hard-headed )
If I agree with the second premise (humans do not act unnaturally), we can still agree that although an act can be natural, it does not justify the act as acceptable.
In response to angelica, I don't think human mistakes are part of evolution, because we don't learn anything from them. Humans are exempt from natural selection at this point. We have social services and a safety net so virtually anyone living in a developed country can pass on their genes.
If I agree with the second premise (humans do not act unnaturally), we can still agree that although an act can be natural, it does not justify the act as acceptable.
I would definitely agree with this!
EDIT: You can thank the environmental movement for creating the concept of "if it's natural it's good" and creating a serious logical conflict.
In response to angelica, I don't think human mistakes are part of evolution, because we don't learn anything from them. Humans are exempt from natural selection at this point. We have social services and a safety net so virtually anyone living in a developed country can pass on their genes.
This, I would not. Humans are not exempt from natural selection. Just because a vast majority of human children survive to reproduction age does not mean the forces of selection do not apply.
Just because a vast majority of human children survive to reproduction age does not mean the forces of selection do not apply.
Who is being outcompeted then? How do you think humans will evolve? The thing is that especially with the social safety net, anyone can reproduce and most people will. Even in Africa at the time being where people are starving to death, the birth rate is through the roof. If anyone is being selectively outcompeted, its successful professionals who have few or no kids.
In response to angelica, I don't think human mistakes are part of evolution, because we don't learn anything from them. Humans are exempt from natural selection at this point. We have social services and a safety net so virtually anyone living in a developed country can pass on their genes.
What I see is that people do not meet their natural healthy life developmental challenges. By the time people hit the middle age stage, they can begin cocooning and readying themselves for a rebirth into their fuller self. This life metamorphosis generates wisdom and gives us the chance to harmonise with life. If we've lost touch with nature along the way, we're offered strong challenges at middle age to encourage us to get back on track. If we do not meet the challenges of these stages (which are recognised by psychology) we seem to begin dying, slowly, or quickly. That our society discounts the wisdom of our aged folk is to our own undoing, as well.
I see these issues holistically. Our natural physical health is not outside evolution. Again the key point is just because we are not aware of how things play out does not mean it does not play out all around us anyway. The natural consequences of our actions speak loud and clear.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
what I'm saying is that natural selection when applied to other organisms refers to one's inability to compete due to genes which make it unable to compete with others. However, in human society, even those who ARE being outcompeted are allowed to because we have services to prop them up and MAKE them competitive. What I mean by my second question about human evolution, is what modifications to the human from a biological/physiological perspective look like? What changes would we see? Do you foresee under the current conditions any speciation from humans to a new species?
Yes, well said and I'm inclined to agree with you. Wait... I'll mull it over for a bit more, but okay, that sounds reasonable and I understand what you're saying. (See? Not all Environmentalists are hard-headed )
If I agree with the second premise (humans do not act unnaturally), we can still agree that although an act can be natural, it does not justify the act as acceptable.
Hell, I consider myself an environmentalist. But it does noone any good to slap around labels like "natural" in the debate really.
All acts are natural as in of nature, but they can certainly be bad, ill-advised and contribute to undermining our own existence on this planet. It's not "save the planet", it's "save us from ourselves" really...
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
We are interacting with evolutionary forces at all times as we progress in our individual lives. I know many people who have ceased evolution. For example, my step-sister who committed suicide--she's no longer attached to the processes of human evolution. Her life holds many keys to successful adaptation to nature. My friend who was murdered as a prostitute, she is no longer evolving. Her addictions and her severe lack of self respect also holds many truths about our lack of connection to natural forces, and the consequences of such disconnection. My one time friend who was run off the road by his drug dealing friends he owed money to, he's been taken out of the evolutionary game.
The problem is most people are oblivious to the life forces that direct us or that mold us. By staying oblivious to these forces, we throw up our hands saying "why me" when met with adversity. If we were in touch with nature, we'd hear the inner call and adapt to our issues, while remaining aligned with nature.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
So, if humans are still part of natural selection, that would mean that at some point we will evolve into a new species. So my question is what will this new species look like? What genetic differences that make it unique will allow it to outcompete the rest of us? Will they have more advanced brains, will they be taller, etc...
Natural selection leads to diversification of teh gene pool and the birth of new species.
Angelica, I'm very sorry to hear about those tragic instances. That is all very sad to hear.
Angelica, I'm very sorry to hear about those tragic instances. That is all very sad to hear.
Thanks you very much for your sentiment. I think that the loss of any human on this planet diminishes us all. We're only as strong as our weakest links.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I thought you might like it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
what is reason?
you're not saying we are the only species with the ability to reason are you?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Where did we learn these unnatural actions and do other species act unnaturally? Well, we learned how to do these things through science and trial and error. No I don't believe any other species acts unnaturally. There is no parallel or even vague example of other species mimicking any of these acts.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Two words: Top Predator.
Well, if you believe you're onboard a spaceship called earth, it should work out fine.
I thought I maybe had gone into it before, but I'll give the quick rundown on the concept of "second nature". I think the source is "the dialectic of the enlightenment" by Adorno & Horkheimer.
First, humans are subject to nature and it's unpredictability. We have little ability to influence it, and are at the mercy of weather and other circumstances in the nature around us. We have to adapt to and accept the effects of nature on our lives. Then we have the enlightenment and the coming of the modern age (modern meaning more specifically a time-period and certain developments, rather than in the understanding of "new"). Man starts to control nature to lessen the impacts of the whims of nature. Which is what science is all about. Controlling and harnessing nature. Through this process the unpredictability and uncertainty of nature can be reduced and perhaps all done away with and give humans full control. This is the vision of the enlightenment and the industrial age (the modern age) up to about the world wars.
Now here is where second nature enters as a concept. When we get these huge complex societies with complex economic systems and myriad branches of science and so on, it may seem that the control is slipping again. But this time not due to the uncertainty and unpredictability of nature, but due to our own systems and institutions being unpredictable and uncertain. Thus we are under a "second nature" where we again dont have control over our surroundings, but this time in the manmade surroundings themselves. This concept has been utilized by many, especially when it comes to pollution, toxins in food and otherwise, medicine and so on. The world is not essentially any more under our control than it used to be long ago, but the risks we are running are now increasingly manmade rather than of nature.
Did I succeed in getting that across?
This was then meant as a comment to the "we're in control of our surroundings" statement, that I don't agree with without qualifications.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Now just because things are not unnatural, doesn't mean they can't be wrong or bad according to our perceptions and values. But natural/unnatural is not what's at stake. It's plain old good/bad judgements. For instance, it is nothing against nature to scorch most of the world with nukes, as they operate by the laws of physics. However, I would certainly call it bad, and not good for us humans (and most other life).
Environmentalism is first and foremost a venture to save ourselves, not "the planet" or "nature". Both will always be there, but we can fuck them up to a point where we cannot be part of it, and destroy the world as a human habitat. That's what's at stake most often. So we have to be careful, certainly.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I totally agree. I figure it better like a cancer. At the beginning maybe we were part of the same organism, but then a particular cell, the humankind, has gone mad. So the cancer is destroying itself and its natural environment by its same hands. Maybe it all was already in its DNA. But I trust in nature. Nature always finds its antibodies against any threat.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Very well said.
Well, forgive me if I semplify the beautiful debate with Sourdough and Angelica... I'd wish badly to say that humans are simply silly. But this may take misunderstandings, so I have to get into the serious debate.... I think humans are not unnatural, they have simply lost contact with nature and the awareness of being a "natural" element connected with the environment. I don't agree with Angelica this time about "awareness". Individual awareness, within a social and cultural context, is one thing. The basic "species awareness" in another thing. Humans have less "species awareness" than any other species since they are no longer respecting the natural balance of the same environement that allows them to survive. This means that they are no longer aware of their "being part of nature". All the living species have such in-built awareness, we have lost it completely. Is such loss "natural"??? "natural" to me it is not anything occurring. "natural" to me is something that has to do with an original and necessary balance to life. When such original balance necessary to life is broken, something "artificial" occurs. So, humans are still natural being, a product of nature. But their evolution and actions and products have become unnatural 'cause of the social and intellectual evolution it has taken. In short, I think we are a weird "mistake" of nature, exactly like a cancer.
Water is the essence of life. Humans continue to lay down concrete and other impervious soils, causing enormous increase in water surface runoff in the watersheds, which leads to more frequent bank shaping channel events, which causes erosion and unstability of streams, which leads to in stream habitat reduction and nutrification of the streams, which leads to loss of fish and other aquatic habitat, which begins to break down the food chain....definitely not "natural"....
NEWAGEHIPPIE
Keep your eyes open, eventually something will happen....
Great topic. To answer this question - no humans cannot do anything unnatural to the earth.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I believe a big part of the problem regarding science is that we have become quite technologically advanced, and yet many individual humans still have not come to develop their own personal values systems. This includes our scientists. People accept the tribal mindset and the accepted group ideas without question. Many people objectify themselves by striving to be only objective. The goal must be to develop a healthy subjective self that is capable of comprehending what is objective and then melding the two. If one tunes out their own direct inner feelings when making decisions, ones tunes out their unique individual understandings of their surroundings and loses conscious touch with their natural connection to nature. In order for us to be able to make personally responsible decisions on a mass scale, we must awaken our feelings and our direct inner understandings. By doing so, we become aligned to nature and natural responsibility. When we do so to a mass degree, our scientific advances, among others, will be naturally in synch with the life around us.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
god-fearing and pious: Aristotle
Viva Zapatista!
i disagree with this ... many species live their lives in a sustainable way - in many cases, it is because of humans that they are unable to ...
humans role in nature is to ensure the preservation of our species - what people fail to realize is that ensuring our preservation also means the preservation of every other species ... we are interconnected - if we start to lose species - there are consequences ...
similarily with the environment - what kind of planet are we leaving our children and for that matter the rest of the world ... previous generations have left us with toxic waste and now we see cancer rates skyrocketing ... and current generations are leaving worse things ... so, in the end - we are not only endangering many species in this world we are ultimately endangering ourselves ...
"Humans are the only species who have awareness of their own actions and of the consequences of such actions. This ability, along with our ability to reason is unique among all life on the planet."
It is my understanding that humans are the only animals who consider, ponder and reflect on their choices and actions at this time. I'm under the impression that it is only humans who can comprehend their mortality consciously and make choices based on such reflection. I'm of the understanding that animals sense things and respond based on conditioning, and act on that. Also instinct drives animals to act out numerous behaviours. I'm not aware of any information indicating that at this time animals can consider their circumstances and then come up with a game plan to rise about such circumstances. If you have information that does indicate this, I would love to hear it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I think it depends on how one looks at "mistakes" of nature. I believe it is by our mistakes that we learn and grow and evolve, so therefore I see "mistakes" as a natural evolutionary mechanism. And I therefore view mistakes as necessary for when we get off of track--acknowledging our mistakes and learning from them is the key to getting ourselves back on track.
I agree that humans have generally lost touch with acting as a harmonised part of nature. I don't believe we have done so completely. It is our conscious awareness of being one with nature that we've lost. However, our conscious awareness--our ego--is a very small part of who we actually are. We operate unconsciously all the time. This happens especially when we are ignorant to the consequences of our actions. We sabotoge our own selves unconsciously all the time when we continue to remain ignorant of the ramifications of our choice. This is why most people are in a paralysed, impotent state. The small part of who they think they are is being overrun by the whole of who they are below the surface. Therefore we don't make any scientific advances we cannot support at this time. We won't generate, much less elect healthy, responsible leaders, at this time. We can't accumulate the power, money, etc. that we hope to in order to make our dreams come true on a mass level at this time. On a deep inner level we're kicking our own feet out from under ourselves in an effort to wake ourselves up to our lack of balance with our surroundings. Despite what we think, evolution and nature remains wonderfully in charge and operating in ways we can barely fathom.
The majority of who we are is unconscious--we each have our own inner sleeping beauty--waiting for us to cut through the dense, tangled inner brush of the years of our sleep, to offer our first kiss of awakening. We can go beyond identifying with the part of us that has been created by what we've been taught. We can start to open up to who we ARE as a whole. It is when we learn to harmonise with who we truly are in nature that we will reap the rewards and come to create with ease and abundance.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yes, well said and I'm inclined to agree with you. Wait... I'll mull it over for a bit more, but okay, that sounds reasonable and I understand what you're saying. (See? Not all Environmentalists are hard-headed
If I agree with the second premise (humans do not act unnaturally), we can still agree that although an act can be natural, it does not justify the act as acceptable.
Yes, well said and I'm inclined to agree with you. Wait... I'll mull it over for a bit more, but okay, that sounds reasonable and I understand what you're saying. (See? Not all Environmentalists are hard-headed
If I agree with the second premise (humans do not act unnaturally), we can still agree that although an act can be natural, it does not justify the act as acceptable.
In response to angelica, I don't think human mistakes are part of evolution, because we don't learn anything from them. Humans are exempt from natural selection at this point. We have social services and a safety net so virtually anyone living in a developed country can pass on their genes.
I would definitely agree with this!
EDIT: You can thank the environmental movement for creating the concept of "if it's natural it's good" and creating a serious logical conflict.
This, I would not. Humans are not exempt from natural selection. Just because a vast majority of human children survive to reproduction age does not mean the forces of selection do not apply.
Who is being outcompeted then? How do you think humans will evolve? The thing is that especially with the social safety net, anyone can reproduce and most people will. Even in Africa at the time being where people are starving to death, the birth rate is through the roof. If anyone is being selectively outcompeted, its successful professionals who have few or no kids.
Roughly speaking, any gene pool that doesn't reproduce at levels equal to or greater than another.
By the modification of genes via mutations and natural selection, of course.
But they do not reproduce in equal numbers. And, for the most part, they do not reproduce via incest.
That ought to tell you something about the "starving to death".
I'm not sure "successful professional" is a gene pool, but your point is a valid one at some level.
What I see is that people do not meet their natural healthy life developmental challenges. By the time people hit the middle age stage, they can begin cocooning and readying themselves for a rebirth into their fuller self. This life metamorphosis generates wisdom and gives us the chance to harmonise with life. If we've lost touch with nature along the way, we're offered strong challenges at middle age to encourage us to get back on track. If we do not meet the challenges of these stages (which are recognised by psychology) we seem to begin dying, slowly, or quickly. That our society discounts the wisdom of our aged folk is to our own undoing, as well.
I see these issues holistically. Our natural physical health is not outside evolution. Again the key point is just because we are not aware of how things play out does not mean it does not play out all around us anyway. The natural consequences of our actions speak loud and clear.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Hell, I consider myself an environmentalist. But it does noone any good to slap around labels like "natural" in the debate really.
All acts are natural as in of nature, but they can certainly be bad, ill-advised and contribute to undermining our own existence on this planet. It's not "save the planet", it's "save us from ourselves" really...
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
We are interacting with evolutionary forces at all times as we progress in our individual lives. I know many people who have ceased evolution. For example, my step-sister who committed suicide--she's no longer attached to the processes of human evolution. Her life holds many keys to successful adaptation to nature. My friend who was murdered as a prostitute, she is no longer evolving. Her addictions and her severe lack of self respect also holds many truths about our lack of connection to natural forces, and the consequences of such disconnection. My one time friend who was run off the road by his drug dealing friends he owed money to, he's been taken out of the evolutionary game.
The problem is most people are oblivious to the life forces that direct us or that mold us. By staying oblivious to these forces, we throw up our hands saying "why me" when met with adversity. If we were in touch with nature, we'd hear the inner call and adapt to our issues, while remaining aligned with nature.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Natural selection leads to diversification of teh gene pool and the birth of new species.
Angelica, I'm very sorry to hear about those tragic instances. That is all very sad to hear.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!