It is nice to come to an agreement. Thank you for bearing with me.
I think it's interesting to consider the value systems on which we base our moral judgement of human activity. I really have been enjoying the back-and-forth on this topic. Thanks again for participating.
Actually, I think that "natural" and "unnatural" are null to begin with in this context. I'm opposed to reifying them.
If you're going to argue that we should change troublesome human behaviors because as humans they're our behaviors to change, I'm with you all the way. In principle, at least. In practice, we'd need to reach some agreement on what human behaviors should be changed, and why. And I'm even open to a wide range of possible reasons why. I'm just not open to the reason why implied in the original post: that human behavior is "unnatural", and therefore should be changed. I'm opposed to this reason why because I'm opposed to the false distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" in this context.
I homed in on the semantics because that's where I perceived the problem to be: the original post was promoting a major change in human behavior based on semantic confusion rather than on a well-reasoned argument from clear first principles.
Geez, I dunno, isn't that kind of just arguing semantics really? I mean, the very term and concept of "natural" is a human one.
Exactly. My objection to the original post is that the "natural/unnatural" distinction is arbitrary, meaningless, and a piss-poor guide to justifying human behavior.
The original poster desperately needs to find some other reason to object to oppose artificially-large herds of cattle.
Either that, or he needs to start enumerating unnatural sources of human behavior, and explaining why he believes that artficially-large herds of cattle come from such an unnatural source rather than a natural one.
Saying huge herds of cattle are man-made and therefore wrong is like saying that beehives are bee-made and therefore wrong. It's silly, and makes no sense at all unless you've got a really good reason to think that humans are fundamentally different from every other organism--every other phenomenon, even--in all the universe.
And I'm not just talking about superficial differences, such as sentience, or tool-using, or human ethical systems, or whatever. I'm talking about a difference in the source of these other differences. Are you prepared to argue that humans come from an unnatural source?
I'm being pedantic because I think that the colloquialisms agreed upon by the majority of people are based on a false distinction, and that they lead to false choices, false ideals, and false actions.
I have no problem with the colloquial distinction between natural and artificial when discussing a camping trip.
I have a huge problem with the colloquial distinction between natural and artificial when discussing the proper place and role of Man in the universe.
The original post says that breeding huge numbers of cattle is "unnatural". What this really means is, it's "man-made". This is like saying that molehills are "unnatural" because they are "mole-made".
Not only that, but the original post is implying that because huge herds of cattle are man-made, they are wrong, and should be done away with. This is like saying that because molehills are mole-made, they are wrong, and moles should stop making them.
Thus, the original poster has become confused by the colloquialisms agreed upon by the majority of people, and it has led him to a false conclusion about human activity in this context.
Of course, all this changes if we allow the possibility of "unnatural" sources of phenomena. But in that case, somebody needs to define such unnatural sources, and explain why we should consider artificially (i.e., man-made) large herds of cattle to come from an unnatural source rather than a natual one.
If you can't do that, you're probably better off leaving the whole "natural/unnatural" question alone, and arguing against huge herds of cattle on other grounds: practicality, survival, pursuit of happiness, etc.
My objection to the original post isn't based on semantic games, but on the parent poster's skipping over the important step of explaining why "man-made" behavior should be stopped. He seems to think that simply the fact that it's man-made is reason enough, but I'm not buying it. I want a better justification than that.
I actually had two issues with your original post. 1) The bizarro, Newspeakish definition of natural to erase its opposite.
In fact I'm arguing that it's Newspeak to begin with: the distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" is entirely meaningless. My original post is in fact taking its parent post to task for making that distinction in the first place. "Show me where nature ends and un-nature begins," I say, "and I'll consider whether or not Man's behavior is unnatural. But if you can't show me that, then there's no point in bringing it up." The parent poster brings it up, but cannot justify it.
If you think there are both natural and unnatural phenomena, then please explain yourself. What is the source, the font, the wellspring of unnatural phenomena in our natural universe? If there isn't one, then you're the one guilty of Newspeak, not me. You're the one judging human activity based on words that have no meaning, not me.
2) The assertion that humans are no more important than viruses.
Please note: I am not asserting that humans are no more important than viruses. I am asserting that human activity is no less natural than viral activity. You can't argue that it's unnatural for humans to overuse their resources, poison their environment, and put themselves at risk of extinction. Unless, that is, you're prepared to make the same argument in the case of viruses. Or kudzu. Or locusts. Or any other organism that does exactly the same thing, given a similar lack of predators and other environmental constraints.
But in what way would you say that humans are "more important" than viruses? Do you simply mean that in the subjective sense, that humans are more important to themselves and to other humans simply for reasons of individual survival and species sympathy? Or do you meant the ethical system of humans is more important than the ethical system of viruses? If so, in what way, and to whom? Is there anything about this line of reasoning that isn't subjective?
If humans are only important to humans, for purely subjective reasons, then humans truly are no more important than viruses, whether you like it or not.
Either your existence is justified according to some higher power, or your existence is no more meaningful than anything else in the universe. I mean, it's meaningful to you, but your opinion is subjective and irrelevant.
Ethics has no value except as related to human motives and actions.
Alright, so then what is the value of human motives and actions? Is it an objective value or a subjective value? Are human ethical systems a product of nature or un-nature?
If human motives and actions are unimportant in a system, then it's not a valid system of ethics because it attempts to redefine the problem into nonexistence.
I'm arguing that the problem doesn't exist in the first place, and that you are committing the error of trying to define a nonexistent problem and then solve it.
You seem to be saying that the problem must exist, in order to justify the value of human ethical systems. I'm saying that since the problem doesn't exist, you don't need to go to the trouble of developing human ethical systems, let alone having to justify them according to some illogical criteria.
A system that ascribes no good or evil to any human action provides no guidance for behavior and is thus, not a valid system of ethics.
Why do we need a valid system of ethics? Why do we need a guidance for behavior, beyond raw need and individual desire? Why do we need to ascribe good or evil to any human action? Do amoebas ascribe good or evil to their actions? Do fruit bats need a valid system of ethics?
Also, we place value judgements on actions simply as part of perceiving the world, and the question of whether having an ethic at all is inherently meritorious is essentially a waste of time to consider as it is outside human exp
And by focusing on localized problems whose inputs and outcomes are well understood, and whose immediate impact is readily perceived, we stand a chance of actually making the world a better place, community by community.
Trying to derive universal principles from our nascent understanding of chaotic systems is a recipe for disappointment, waste, and failure.
I'm confident that one day, after much more research has been carried out, whole planetery climate systems will be "localized problems", well understood and readily perceived. Until that day, though, think and act locally.
The God I worship won't so much blow the world up as restore it to its original pristine state, and restore Mankind to its proper place in the natural order.
I like to think that I'm simply pointing out the contradiction inherent in defining things as "natural" and "unnatural".
Also, you seem to be arguing that the whole "natural/unnatural" question is unimportant, and that only questions of ethics and sanity are important.
Fair enough.
But then, what's the point of ethics? What's the point of sanity? Do they have some transcendent value? Do they address some metaphysical need? Do they have any importance at all, apart from purely subjective egocentric or anthropocentric perceptions?
Look, you can't just arbitrarily decide that "natural" means whatever best fits your preconceived ideas of right and wrong. I want to know where you got your ideas of right and wrong, and why you think it's proper to define "natural" in the way that you do.
Actually, I mean that plenty of animals do plenty of things, many of which are clever and crafty, and that humans are not somehow "unnatural" in this regard.
I agree with you that human extinction is an unacceptable outcome, on purely anthropocentric survival grounds, if nothing else. I just don't think it's an "unnatural" outcome.
Your opinion is an interesting one, but I do not share it.
My opinion is that extinction is not a "problem" from the "natural" point of view.
If it is a problem at all, it must be a problem in some context other than nature. Simply telling me you think it's a problem (nice use of sarcasm, by the way) adds nothing to the debate: We already know that many people think it's a problem. In what way do you think it's a problem?
Yes, and in fact I have no problems with arguments from sustainability--especially in the case of humans, who seem especially capable of forseeing consequences and changing their behavior in response to events that have not happened and may never happen.
What I do have a problem with, however, is arguments from "nature".
In what way is it useful? What would you consider a "technological capable being"?
Is a beaver dam artificial or natural? Is a beehive artificial or natural?
Many cells form within their structure mitochondria: complex and sophisticated energy conversion devices. Are cells "technological capable beings"?
What makes the works of Man different from the works of all other organisms? Is it just the anthropocentric viewpoint? In that case, wolves would give pride of place to their own works, based on their lupocentric viewpoint, and we're no better off then before.
The most common definition of "natural" is as an alternative to "man-made."
This definition is bogus. What makes "man-made" any less natural than "beaver-made", or "bird-made", or "bee-made"?
Yes, by my definition there is no such thing as "unnatural". Which is why I have such a hard time understanding arguments based on the premise that man's behavior is unnatural.
And what makes "sentient" life more ethically valid than viral life? The whole foundation of ethics is the idea that Man is not a product of nature. Because you're right: if we're just another random evolutionary outcome, then we really do have no basis for making ethical judgements. See also: nihilism and Nietzche's Ubermensch.
The conundrum of man's place in--or out of--nature must be resolved before you can discuss "sane ethical and philosophical system[s]".
If we are truly above nature, as some of us claim, then yes, we truly have a different set of rules that we must play by, and we are truly capable of "unnatural" behavior.
But is that the case? Does the parent poster think that is the case? Do you think that is the case?
If we are not above nature, then we are governed only by the same rules that govern avian flu virus, hornets, and the tibetan yak, for better or worse. We might change our behavior to improve our chances of survivability, but never because our behavior is "unnatural"--it can't be.
If you believe we are above nature, what has led you to this belief, and what rules do you believe we should obey?
You seem to be saying that instinct is the font of all natural animal behavior, and that humans don't have instincts, therefore human behavior is not natural.
But where did the "un-nature" enter into the system? If humans are a product of nature, then it follows that instinct-less humans are a product of nature, and that our behavior, while not instinctive, is still natural in every way.
I mean, how can nature produce un-nature?
So it's natural that humans use their intelligence to plan and execute plants to improve their daily life, whether it's invent and build cars, or stave off impending doom.
Agreed. But it's no more natural than breeding huge numbers of cows, or dropping nuclear bombs on each other, or sending men to the Moon, or casting Paris Hilton as Mother Theresa.
You're debating whether or not this or that course of action is truly "desireable" against some metric or other. This is a fine debate, and one which deserves great attention. But it's not the debate I'm interested in right at this moment.
I'm simply asking the parent poster what is meant by their use of the word "natural" in the context of human activity.
Slashdot Mirror
It is nice to come to an agreement. Thank you for bearing with me.
I think it's interesting to consider the value systems on which we base our moral judgement of human activity. I really have been enjoying the back-and-forth on this topic. Thanks again for participating.
Ew.
Just...
Ew.
Actually, I think that "natural" and "unnatural" are null to begin with in this context. I'm opposed to reifying them.
If you're going to argue that we should change troublesome human behaviors because as humans they're our behaviors to change, I'm with you all the way. In principle, at least. In practice, we'd need to reach some agreement on what human behaviors should be changed, and why. And I'm even open to a wide range of possible reasons why. I'm just not open to the reason why implied in the original post: that human behavior is "unnatural", and therefore should be changed. I'm opposed to this reason why because I'm opposed to the false distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" in this context.
Does that make more sense?
I homed in on the semantics because that's where I perceived the problem to be: the original post was promoting a major change in human behavior based on semantic confusion rather than on a well-reasoned argument from clear first principles.
Also, because I was having fun.
Heh. Probably so. We added "hubris" in our lexicon for a reason, after all...
Geez, I dunno, isn't that kind of just arguing semantics really? I mean, the very term and concept of "natural" is a human one.
Exactly. My objection to the original post is that the "natural/unnatural" distinction is arbitrary, meaningless, and a piss-poor guide to justifying human behavior.
The original poster desperately needs to find some other reason to object to oppose artificially-large herds of cattle.
Either that, or he needs to start enumerating unnatural sources of human behavior, and explaining why he believes that artficially-large herds of cattle come from such an unnatural source rather than a natural one.
Saying huge herds of cattle are man-made and therefore wrong is like saying that beehives are bee-made and therefore wrong. It's silly, and makes no sense at all unless you've got a really good reason to think that humans are fundamentally different from every other organism--every other phenomenon, even--in all the universe.
And I'm not just talking about superficial differences, such as sentience, or tool-using, or human ethical systems, or whatever. I'm talking about a difference in the source of these other differences. Are you prepared to argue that humans come from an unnatural source?
I'm being pedantic because I think that the colloquialisms agreed upon by the majority of people are based on a false distinction, and that they lead to false choices, false ideals, and false actions.
I have no problem with the colloquial distinction between natural and artificial when discussing a camping trip.
I have a huge problem with the colloquial distinction between natural and artificial when discussing the proper place and role of Man in the universe.
The original post says that breeding huge numbers of cattle is "unnatural". What this really means is, it's "man-made". This is like saying that molehills are "unnatural" because they are "mole-made".
Not only that, but the original post is implying that because huge herds of cattle are man-made, they are wrong, and should be done away with. This is like saying that because molehills are mole-made, they are wrong, and moles should stop making them.
Thus, the original poster has become confused by the colloquialisms agreed upon by the majority of people, and it has led him to a false conclusion about human activity in this context.
Of course, all this changes if we allow the possibility of "unnatural" sources of phenomena. But in that case, somebody needs to define such unnatural sources, and explain why we should consider artificially (i.e., man-made) large herds of cattle to come from an unnatural source rather than a natual one.
If you can't do that, you're probably better off leaving the whole "natural/unnatural" question alone, and arguing against huge herds of cattle on other grounds: practicality, survival, pursuit of happiness, etc.
My objection to the original post isn't based on semantic games, but on the parent poster's skipping over the important step of explaining why "man-made" behavior should be stopped. He seems to think that simply the fact that it's man-made is reason enough, but I'm not buying it. I want a better justification than that.
I think you have misunderstood me.
I actually had two issues with your original post.
1) The bizarro, Newspeakish definition of natural to erase its opposite.
In fact I'm arguing that it's Newspeak to begin with: the distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" is entirely meaningless. My original post is in fact taking its parent post to task for making that distinction in the first place. "Show me where nature ends and un-nature begins," I say, "and I'll consider whether or not Man's behavior is unnatural. But if you can't show me that, then there's no point in bringing it up." The parent poster brings it up, but cannot justify it.
If you think there are both natural and unnatural phenomena, then please explain yourself. What is the source, the font, the wellspring of unnatural phenomena in our natural universe? If there isn't one, then you're the one guilty of Newspeak, not me. You're the one judging human activity based on words that have no meaning, not me.
2) The assertion that humans are no more important than viruses.
Please note: I am not asserting that humans are no more important than viruses. I am asserting that human activity is no less natural than viral activity. You can't argue that it's unnatural for humans to overuse their resources, poison their environment, and put themselves at risk of extinction. Unless, that is, you're prepared to make the same argument in the case of viruses. Or kudzu. Or locusts. Or any other organism that does exactly the same thing, given a similar lack of predators and other environmental constraints.
But in what way would you say that humans are "more important" than viruses? Do you simply mean that in the subjective sense, that humans are more important to themselves and to other humans simply for reasons of individual survival and species sympathy? Or do you meant the ethical system of humans is more important than the ethical system of viruses? If so, in what way, and to whom? Is there anything about this line of reasoning that isn't subjective?
If humans are only important to humans, for purely subjective reasons, then humans truly are no more important than viruses, whether you like it or not.
Either your existence is justified according to some higher power, or your existence is no more meaningful than anything else in the universe. I mean, it's meaningful to you, but your opinion is subjective and irrelevant.
Ethics has no value except as related to human motives and actions.
Alright, so then what is the value of human motives and actions? Is it an objective value or a subjective value? Are human ethical systems a product of nature or un-nature?
If human motives and actions are unimportant in a system, then it's not a valid system of ethics because it attempts to redefine the problem into nonexistence.
I'm arguing that the problem doesn't exist in the first place, and that you are committing the error of trying to define a nonexistent problem and then solve it.
You seem to be saying that the problem must exist, in order to justify the value of human ethical systems. I'm saying that since the problem doesn't exist, you don't need to go to the trouble of developing human ethical systems, let alone having to justify them according to some illogical criteria.
A system that ascribes no good or evil to any human action provides no guidance for behavior and is thus, not a valid system of ethics.
Why do we need a valid system of ethics? Why do we need a guidance for behavior, beyond raw need and individual desire? Why do we need to ascribe good or evil to any human action? Do amoebas ascribe good or evil to their actions? Do fruit bats need a valid system of ethics?
Also, we place value judgements on actions simply as part of perceiving the world, and the question of whether having an ethic at all is inherently meritorious is essentially a waste of time to consider as it is outside human exp
Exactly.
And by focusing on localized problems whose inputs and outcomes are well understood, and whose immediate impact is readily perceived, we stand a chance of actually making the world a better place, community by community.
Trying to derive universal principles from our nascent understanding of chaotic systems is a recipe for disappointment, waste, and failure.
I'm confident that one day, after much more research has been carried out, whole planetery climate systems will be "localized problems", well understood and readily perceived. Until that day, though, think and act locally.
Thank you. Your point that value judgements require "faith in a universal absolute" is very good.
Indeed, nothing could be a problem from the "natural" point of view, as you define it. Talk about adding nothing to the debate.
QED.
My work here is done.
I guess it depends on your understanding of God.
The God I worship won't so much blow the world up as restore it to its original pristine state, and restore Mankind to its proper place in the natural order.
But we're getting ahead of ourselves, here...
I like to think that I'm simply pointing out the contradiction inherent in defining things as "natural" and "unnatural".
Also, you seem to be arguing that the whole "natural/unnatural" question is unimportant, and that only questions of ethics and sanity are important.
Fair enough.
But then, what's the point of ethics? What's the point of sanity? Do they have some transcendent value? Do they address some metaphysical need? Do they have any importance at all, apart from purely subjective egocentric or anthropocentric perceptions?
Plastic is a product of man. Man is a product of nature. In what way would you say that plastic is "unnatural"?
Wouldn't those Vogons and Vogon tenth-graders also be natural?
Look, you can't just arbitrarily decide that "natural" means whatever best fits your preconceived ideas of right and wrong. I want to know where you got your ideas of right and wrong, and why you think it's proper to define "natural" in the way that you do.
You mean termites.
Actually, I mean that plenty of animals do plenty of things, many of which are clever and crafty, and that humans are not somehow "unnatural" in this regard.
I agree with you that human extinction is an unacceptable outcome, on purely anthropocentric survival grounds, if nothing else. I just don't think it's an "unnatural" outcome.
Your opinion is an interesting one, but I do not share it.
My opinion is that extinction is not a "problem" from the "natural" point of view.
If it is a problem at all, it must be a problem in some context other than nature. Simply telling me you think it's a problem (nice use of sarcasm, by the way) adds nothing to the debate: We already know that many people think it's a problem. In what way do you think it's a problem?
Yes, and in fact I have no problems with arguments from sustainability--especially in the case of humans, who seem especially capable of forseeing consequences and changing their behavior in response to events that have not happened and may never happen.
What I do have a problem with, however, is arguments from "nature".
I consider this a more useful distinction.
In what way is it useful? What would you consider a "technological capable being"?
Is a beaver dam artificial or natural? Is a beehive artificial or natural?
Many cells form within their structure mitochondria: complex and sophisticated energy conversion devices. Are cells "technological capable beings"?
What makes the works of Man different from the works of all other organisms? Is it just the anthropocentric viewpoint? In that case, wolves would give pride of place to their own works, based on their lupocentric viewpoint, and we're no better off then before.
The most common definition of "natural" is as an alternative to "man-made."
This definition is bogus. What makes "man-made" any less natural than "beaver-made", or "bird-made", or "bee-made"?
Yes, by my definition there is no such thing as "unnatural". Which is why I have such a hard time understanding arguments based on the premise that man's behavior is unnatural.
And what makes "sentient" life more ethically valid than viral life? The whole foundation of ethics is the idea that Man is not a product of nature. Because you're right: if we're just another random evolutionary outcome, then we really do have no basis for making ethical judgements. See also: nihilism and Nietzche's Ubermensch.
The conundrum of man's place in--or out of--nature must be resolved before you can discuss "sane ethical and philosophical system[s]".
If we are truly above nature, as some of us claim, then yes, we truly have a different set of rules that we must play by, and we are truly capable of "unnatural" behavior.
But is that the case? Does the parent poster think that is the case? Do you think that is the case?
If we are not above nature, then we are governed only by the same rules that govern avian flu virus, hornets, and the tibetan yak, for better or worse. We might change our behavior to improve our chances of survivability, but never because our behavior is "unnatural"--it can't be.
If you believe we are above nature, what has led you to this belief, and what rules do you believe we should obey?
You seem to be saying that instinct is the font of all natural animal behavior, and that humans don't have instincts, therefore human behavior is not natural. But where did the "un-nature" enter into the system? If humans are a product of nature, then it follows that instinct-less humans are a product of nature, and that our behavior, while not instinctive, is still natural in every way. I mean, how can nature produce un-nature?
So it's natural that humans use their intelligence to plan and execute plants to improve their daily life, whether it's invent and build cars, or stave off impending doom.
Agreed. But it's no more natural than breeding huge numbers of cows, or dropping nuclear bombs on each other, or sending men to the Moon, or casting Paris Hilton as Mother Theresa.
You're debating whether or not this or that course of action is truly "desireable" against some metric or other. This is a fine debate, and one which deserves great attention. But it's not the debate I'm interested in right at this moment.
I'm simply asking the parent poster what is meant by their use of the word "natural" in the context of human activity.