M
Mislav
Guest
This thread started off as a political one but look at where it's gone: ADD, Darwinism, drug companies.
:rollin
:rollin
|
|
|
B
bizorky
Guest
^Who said politics wasn't fun, particularly when off topic?
E
EnviroTO
Guest
Why have nature preserves? Downtown Toronto is a nature preserve by your view of nature. Those people writing the dictionaries are crazy people that don't get all the complexities of what nature means in the bizorsky sense. How did people defining what nature is come up with that crap. Why not have sprawl? It's only natural because man did it and that is natural to you. Humans are animals... violence is part of the animal kingdom... the weak die the strong survive... why try to say its bad when it might only be natural. We don't break a fight between the Tiger and the Gazelle so why try to stop fighting between gangsters. Why care about anyone but ourselves? Why care if the blue whale goes extinct... if we hunt it it would only be natural wouldn't it? The whale deserves to die because it didn't evolve fast enough to save itself and that is how natural selection works doesn't it? I should be able to kill as many blue whales as I like because that is what freedom is, that is human's destiny to rule over the world and put animals in museums so people can pay admission to see their bones. Why do I bother putting garbage in the trash? Why bother recycling? Why not buy a transport truck to drive to the grocery store if that is what turns your crank? Pollution... there is no such thing because everything is natural and if you don't believe it ask bizorsky... your nature guide. You should really get a job at Parks Canada... your insight on nature is quite something. The first thing those nature preserves need is oil drilling... Bush realizes it is natural and belongs in a nature preserve and bizorsky gets it. A nature preserve is missing that special something without good old human influences.
Hey bizorsky don't bother voting green. It definitely isn't for you. I think Harper's environmental plan will be right up your alley. A species of frog is going extinct due to human encroachment... not a problem because its natural. Harper has a hard time breathing on a smoggy day... its an environmental catastrophe.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
Attention forum: There has been a revision to the definition of natural and it now simply means present in or produced by anything.
If you have house insurance which covers natural disasters you will be glad to know than according to the updated meaning of the term arson will now be covered since humans possess no unnatural powers and what humans do is therefore natural under the new definition.
Also note that with the revised definition of natural your 100% Natural Florida Orange Juice may or may not have come from oranges... it may be a mix of various ingredients to be similar in composition to orange juice that comes from oranges grown on tree because everything is natural including man-made orange juice.
Biology texts will be modified at the earliest convenience to update Darwin's theories such that "natural selection" will now be referred to as simple "selection" since "natural" holds no meaning.
I have a new idea for a waterfront project... an interpretive centre. A guide will take you on a tour of the first urban nature preserve. Come see humans in their natural habitat. On the tour you will see the suited business person, the transit driver, the homeless person, and the always unpredictable urban forum member.
Don't bother to try and understand it because it is very complex... just accept that anything is natural.
If you have house insurance which covers natural disasters you will be glad to know than according to the updated meaning of the term arson will now be covered since humans possess no unnatural powers and what humans do is therefore natural under the new definition.
Also note that with the revised definition of natural your 100% Natural Florida Orange Juice may or may not have come from oranges... it may be a mix of various ingredients to be similar in composition to orange juice that comes from oranges grown on tree because everything is natural including man-made orange juice.
Biology texts will be modified at the earliest convenience to update Darwin's theories such that "natural selection" will now be referred to as simple "selection" since "natural" holds no meaning.
I have a new idea for a waterfront project... an interpretive centre. A guide will take you on a tour of the first urban nature preserve. Come see humans in their natural habitat. On the tour you will see the suited business person, the transit driver, the homeless person, and the always unpredictable urban forum member.
Don't bother to try and understand it because it is very complex... just accept that anything is natural.
B
bizorky
Guest
It is most certainly a type of natural environment, an urban ecosystem.
Why do you think they are crazy? That's a rather extreme view, isn't it?
And so on, and so on...
You are getting emotional and generating plenty of non-sequiters. None of the above makes much sense because it is a collection of incorrect statements, faulty analogies, glittering generalizations and attempts at diversion by personality attack. In previous posts you have used false dilemmas and false issue devices, as well. It is typically called an irrational response, the nemesis of rational persuasion. These also fall into the broad category of propaganda devices. Since you would appear to have some sort of political aspirations, do you really think they are best exercised by way of such a petulant approach?
A band-wagon technique: attempting to appeal to a larger group so as to bring pressure on your opponent. Typically (historically) more successful when tied with name-calling and "plain-folks talk" devices.
False selection, misrepresentation, slanting of statements and yet more diversions based on personality attacks.
More of the same, this time including a transfer device and yet more emphasis on personality attacks.
More misrepresentation of statements, incorrect conclusions from facts, card stacking...
More misrepresentation, more arranging of information to create an irrational outcome...
And so on, and so on, more of the same
Are you finished? I kind of hope so, since your above response is not particularly dignifying to you. I would have assumed that by my engagement with you in this thread that you would at least have noted that I find the biosphere and the the processes of nature very fascinating and important, to say the least. Clearly you chose not to see this.
Wanting to be involved in the political process is good. But one of the ends of politics is the creation of policy, the tools and operational platforms that generate action in society. So long as the information is incorrect, or processed to suit limited points of view, policy can result in havoc. Think about that.
Or don't.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
If one cannot have a discussion about what is "natural" because the other party refuses to accept the definition of natural as widely understood by the population, the dictionary, usage in theories, usage in laws, etc then what is the point. The point of words is to communicate and if one cannot trust that a word means what it is defined to mean then the conversation becomes mindless babble because a every sentence is a bunch of words with supposedly disputable meanings.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
And your trying to convince me that "natural" is a very complex concept and isn't what it is defined to be in the dictionary or as it is used in combination with other words like "natural disaster", "nature preserve", "natural selection", etc makes you so worthy of esteem and respect? I assume by "dignifying" you mean "making worthy of esteem and respect" but I suppose I might be jumping to conclusions by assuming it means what the dictionary says it means.
B
bizorky
Guest
You still have yet to prove how human beings and human activities are "unnatural," as in extra-earthly or caused by some extra-universal agency. All I have stated to you is that human beings and human acts are part of the "natural" world, part of the planetary ecosystem, part of the cosmos. This has upset you to the degree that you have chosen to resort to communication techniques meant to obscure and obliterate reasoned discussion. In science, since you claim some level of understanding, all concepts and all "laws" are tentative, and open to examination and testing. You wish to close such examination so as to suit what you feel is right, or because you think the limits of a word is the arbiter of truth according to you. That would appear not to be open minded. Without being open minded, how do you expect to learn anything, or are you open only to notions that suit your feelings and your prejudices?
E
EnviroTO
Guest
Man's existence is natural since it wasn't planned by some thought process. What man does through conscious decisions is unnatural. What man does through urges (hunger, sex drive, reaction to pain) not made through conscious decisions is natural. That is what natural means. No definition of natural I have ever read defines natural as that which is not extra-terrestrial. If man takes a leak in his environment that is natural... if he whips up a new chemical compound and pours it into the environment that is unnatural. This is the accepted use of the word.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
ar·ti·fi·cial
1.
a. Made by humans; produced rather than natural.
b. Brought about or caused by sociopolitical or other human-generated forces or influences: set up artificial barriers against women and minorities; an artificial economic boom.
2. Made in imitation of something natural; simulated: artificial teeth.
3. Not genuine or natural: an artificial smile.
Note how artificial is the opposite to natural and it means "made by humans". These are the meanings of these words. How can a conversation be had if the meanings of all words are up for debate.
1.
a. Made by humans; produced rather than natural.
b. Brought about or caused by sociopolitical or other human-generated forces or influences: set up artificial barriers against women and minorities; an artificial economic boom.
2. Made in imitation of something natural; simulated: artificial teeth.
3. Not genuine or natural: an artificial smile.
Note how artificial is the opposite to natural and it means "made by humans". These are the meanings of these words. How can a conversation be had if the meanings of all words are up for debate.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
I think you need to look in the mirror. When all evidence points to you not understanding what natural means you continue to hold onto your own definition.
R
rbtaylor
Guest
Is a beaver dam natural or artificial?
Is a human dam natural or artificial?
How about an ant hill?
A human house?
The answer to all of these questions should, logically, be the same and both answers are correct.
Artificial, or an artifice is an "artful or skillful contrivance". It is still bound by the laws of nature (gravity, nuclear forces, etc.) and is a natural construction.
Consider "artificial" to be the result of an artful or skillful application of nature.
A nuclear reaction is natural -- fission happens all the time. A nuclear reaction inside a nuclear reactor is the same as that which we just determined was natural.
The transfer of heat (energy) from high energy areas (hot) to low energy areas (cold) is also natural.
You can step through all of the steps that take place in a Nuclear Reactor and will find that each minute step is entirely natural (bound by laws of the universe). The reactor itself is the application of nature in a way that benefits us -- an artifice of nature -- artificial.
Is a human dam natural or artificial?
How about an ant hill?
A human house?
The answer to all of these questions should, logically, be the same and both answers are correct.
Artificial, or an artifice is an "artful or skillful contrivance". It is still bound by the laws of nature (gravity, nuclear forces, etc.) and is a natural construction.
Consider "artificial" to be the result of an artful or skillful application of nature.
A nuclear reaction is natural -- fission happens all the time. A nuclear reaction inside a nuclear reactor is the same as that which we just determined was natural.
The transfer of heat (energy) from high energy areas (hot) to low energy areas (cold) is also natural.
You can step through all of the steps that take place in a Nuclear Reactor and will find that each minute step is entirely natural (bound by laws of the universe). The reactor itself is the application of nature in a way that benefits us -- an artifice of nature -- artificial.
B
bizorky
Guest
If humanity is "natural," then how can human acts be "unnatural" if they eminate directly from a "natural" phenomenon? Your delineation is contradictory.
What evidence? You have provided dictionary quotes, that's hardly evidence. You have provided traditional word usage. Are word definitions "natural or "unnatural?" It appears that you want hold your own prejudices and feelings up as facts, that way you can decide when something is "natural," "unnatural," good, bad and so on.
As for the examination of word meanings and concepts clarification, there is an entire branch of human inquiry called analytical philosophy that pursues deliberate or poorly thought-out usage as compared to phenomena. So is this or any other form of human inquiry "natural" or "unnatural?"
Is the word "tree" actually a tree? Is the word "planet" actually a planet? Are you suggesting that all words actually embody and contain the totality of things they are supposed to be describing?
For someone who is so fixed on banning "unnatural" compounds and so on, how do you excuse yourself from using a device such as a computer - a machine that I would have to assume from your own writings is a technology composed of all kinds of "unnatural" substances - for your "artificial" and "unnatural" communication through an "artificial" technical system? Are you not living in a most contradictory manner according to your own beliefs?
Add to that, this "artificial" communication system is composed of yet more "unnatural" substances, and it is powered by an "artificial" harnessing of electricity derived from the burning of "natural" materials such as gas or coal, or the heat captured from the "artificially processed" natural product called uranium. If these "unnatural" things are so bad in your opinion, what is your excuse for actively using them?
A
adma
Guest
This is what ought to be done to this discussion
E
EnviroTO
Guest
It isn't contradictory. The results of conscious decisions are unnatural by the definition of what natural means. Red mixed with yellow is orange by definition of what orange is. Man which is natural making something happen through a concious decision results in something unnatural because that is the difference between natural and unnatural. The delineation between natural and unnatural is the presence of a conscious decision. Many of your arguments would make sense if you were aguing "normal" vs "abnormal" or "right" vs "wrong" because those terms are subjective based on individual or public perspectives. "Natural" and "unnatural" or "artificial" is not subjective, those terms have absolute meaning.
Words have absolute meanings. Used in the context of a sentence some words can be subjective and some cannot. Words like "five", "hydrogen", "car", and "natural" are not subjective when used in a sentence. Words like "morals", "wrong", and "beautiful" are very subjective. For objects multiple words are needed to convey the the totality of what they are descibing. For example "car" has definite meaning but that meaning can be further refined by adding descriptives (like "red four doored car")... but a car will always be a car.
It is not contradictory. I accept that in areas where there is human activity there can't help but be unnatural activity and substances because, by the definition of "natural", anything we do or create consciously is "unnatural". The environmentalist perspective is that there should be areas on the planet where nature is preserved free from unnatural influences.
Who said "unnatural" is bad? "Unnatural" isn't automatically bad. Who would even suggest that everything a person does consciously or creates consciously would automatically be bad? Everything a person does consciously or creates consciously is unnatural. If there is a goal to protect natural areas on the planet then products created by man (unnatural products) floating free throughout the environment in the air or in the water would probably be contrary to the objective of nature preservation unless it was done to try and return the levels of chemicals in the environment to a more natural level if such level could be determined.