What is "natural"?

[Kamehameha34]

This may belong in miscellaneous, but it's in line with another subject that has been allowed in this forum, so I'm assuming it belongs here.


The term "unnatural" has been used to describe anything that is the product of human intervention - such as castration.

Our tools of intervention are just that - technologies which we employ to accomplish a job. This is no different in principle to monkies that use sticks to eat bugs out of logs, or elephants that use trees to scratch themselves.

Since humans have, indeed, come into existence by the same process as other animals, what makes our usage of technology "unnatural" in comparison to the usage of technology of other animals?

[Jack]

I've heard both sides of this argument before.

Some say that since humans are part of nature, then anything we do is natural. To follow that to its logical conclusion, nothing is unnatural if we can image it or do it.

Others say that apart from the natural order, we are a unique species. Therefore we can cause harm to the planet using technology nature could never anticipate and defend itself against.

Depending on context and subject matter, I could argue either side.

[Alive]

One could say that the term "natural" has no "natural" meaning, being an invented word, but rather depends on context.

[Jack]

Sort of like the word "word", perfectly self-referential in common parlance.

[Kamehameha34]

As is any word in the English language, or any other for that matter.

What I'm trying to target is the stigma attached to it. Generally, natural = good, and unnatural = bad. I'm trying to see if the implication of the word is enough to validate such prejudice.

[loser]

In the strictest technical sense, anything that exists is natural. Thus, chemical compounds synthesized in laboratories are just as natural as those occurring 'naturally' in nature. In this sense, if God exists then He is natural.

In the natural or organic sense, synthesized chemicals are 'unnatural'. Silicon is a natural element and breasts are natural, as well. It is unnatural, however, for breasts to be injected with silicon. In this sense, if God exists, He is supernatural.

Basically, all nouns (persons, places, or things) are natural. It is verbs (existences, actions, or occurences) that are often unnatural.

[Jack]

I'm trying to see if the implication of the word is enough to validate such prejudice.

Prejudice is to judge beforehand, to judge without evidence. It occurs prior to the more reasonable discussion over validity. As to the "implication" of the word, I'd say it depends on context. When you talk about nature as in woods and mountains, that's rarely perceived as pejorative. But in a discussion of morals or religion, then natural is equated with earthly, sinful, not of god.
Based on context, I would expect a Christian speaking about nature to be using it in a negative fashion. If it was a forest ranger, I'd expect his use of the word would be either neutral or positive. If it was a Christian forest ranger, who the hell knows.

[Kamehameha34]

How does something qualify as unnatural?

Does it become unnatural upon human involvement? If so, why does only human involvement qualify as unnatural if we are just another kind of animal?

In the natural or organic sense, synthesized chemicals are 'unnatural'.

That's a bit circular.

[Kamehameha34]

Prejudice is to judge beforehand, to judge without evidence. It occurs prior to the more reasonable discussion over validity.

Yes - and the words "unnatural" and "natural" can operate independently from their acquired stigmas; hence, continuing to categorize them by those stigmas is prejudicial.

Based on context, I would expect a Christian speaking about nature to be using it in a negative fashion. If it was a forest ranger, I'd expect his use of the word would be either neutral or positive. If it was a Christian forest ranger, who the hell knows.

What makes mountains natural, in the positive sense?

[Jack]

When using the noun nature, you're usually talking about forests, the outback, the mountains. What makes them natural in a positive sense? Have you ever stood at the base of a mountain and looked up? Have you ever climbed one? Mountains are where the planet is wrinkled, where the surface has been violently and sometimes quickly deformed on a scale we have difficulty imagining. It's the manifestation of the planetary forces working on the planetary material, the evidence that this is a dynamic planet.
Oh yeah, mountains are very natural, in the good way.

[Alive]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 As is any word in the English language, or any other for that matter. What I'm trying to target is the stigma attached to it. Generally, natural = good, and unnatural = bad. I'm trying to see if the implication of the word is enough to validate such prejudice.

I think the only implication of the word "unnatural" used negatively (and it is not only used negatively) is that the thing referred to is considered negative. For example, homosexuality has been often termed "unnatural" but I don't think many people claim that humans "invented" it. Unnatural in this case is just a synonym for "personally distasteful."

[Jack]

Have you seen the recent news stories about the zoo where two baby orangs are playing with and sleeping with two baby tigers? That's unnatural. Adorable, but certainly unnatural.

[ZNFYRH]

I would agree that if the question of this thread is about the variable degree of favor associated with "natural" and "unnatural" then Kamehameha should rest assured that the words themselves are not the problem, it is that which is given the labels.

I'm the sort of person that believes our human level of awareness, intelligence, and consciousness is "unnatural". At this time, it is not known why or how we got the "spark" and no other species has it.

At this time, there is no balance against human beings other than extreme natural occurrences (floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc). Where the balance in an ecosystem takes place naturally, with the emergence of species to fill niches, there is no "natural" balance against humanity.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNFYRH said: there is no "natural" balance against humanity.

Now, there may not be, because we won the battle, with natures help.

Dinosaurs anyone?

Humans have only existed in dominance for a short time compared to the time of life on earth.

If you only view it from the human dominated times, sure, we clearly are superior.

What about before humans, and after?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood When using the noun nature, you're usually talking about forests, the outback, the mountains. What makes them natural in a positive sense? Have you ever stood at the base of a mountain and looked up? Have you ever climbed one? Mountains are where the planet is wrinkled, where the surface has been violently and sometimes quickly deformed on a scale we have difficulty imagining. It's the manifestation of the planetary forces working on the planetary material, the evidence that this is a dynamic planet. Oh yeah, mountains are very natural, in the good way.

How is that natural - what are the criteria? The fact that it is without human intervention?

Quote by: Alive I think the only implication of the word "unnatural" used negatively (and it is not only used negatively) is that the thing referred to is considered negative. For example, homosexuality has been often termed "unnatural" but I don't think many people claim that humans "invented" it. Unnatural in this case is just a synonym for "personally distasteful."

I think that's a manipulation of the word's connotation. The word carries a negative one, so describing political enemies or concepts with it places that connotation on said enemy or concept. That's why it's so amorphous in politics.

[ZNFYRH]

Osborn,

I think we've definitely conquered the majority of "planetary nature". There is the occasional hurricane or earthquake to put us in our place, however. In the spirit of balance, one has to wonder how much of our own actions on this planet trigger the cataclysmic balancing forces of nature.

Kamehameha,

What is it, exactly, that you have trouble understanding the word "natural" as used in the context of this thread?

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: I think we've definitely conquered the majority of "planetary nature". There is the occasional hurricane or earthquake to put us in our place, however. In the spirit of balance, one has to wonder how much of our own actions on this planet trigger the cataclysmic balancing forces of nature.

We have, for NOW. This is a narrow window of time with which we have existed, and it is certainly foolish to think we will ALWAYS reign superior, simply because what may be our demise is not yet obvious.

Bacteria could be the next strongest species. We are riding the top of the wave, for now.

[Kamehameha34]

Kamehameha, What is it, exactly, that you have trouble understanding the word "natural" as used in the context of this thread?

I want to know why "unnatural" carries a negative connotation if it, infact refers to objects or processes that are indeed natural.

[Jack]

Lots of words carry negative meanings, usually encouraged by special-interest groups wishing to stigmatize a word and thus the reality it represents. It's common, and usually not noticed by the average person. Turning neutral terms into pejorative terms is a common trick in advertising, the government and society.
Just look at how many times we've seen the term "ignorant" used in the forum. Now the word simply means "not aware" and stems from the same root as the word "ignore". Nothing especially negative there. Yet when someone says you're ignorant, how does that make you feel? If you aren't aware of the stigma attached to the word (if you're ignorant of the pejorative connotation of the word "ignorant"), you won't object when someone uses it in reference to you. However, if you are aware, you'll most likely take offense.

[Kamehameha34]

Exactly - I see a lot of members taking offensive to that particular word, even when it's used innocently.