# Do you consider human processes as natural phenomena?



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Do you consider human processes such as deforestation, construction, etc. as "outside" phenomena _acting on_ nature? or do you consider human activity _as part_ of nature itself?

I spoke with countless people who believed that, for example, a bird's nest or beaver dam were 'natural', while human buildings were 'artificial'... I cannot help but link this view to a religiously tainted perspective; as if nature was given to us, to cherish and preserve. I don't share this point of view.

Intuitively, isn't human activity (or more generally, the influence of beings with developed cognitive faculties on their environment) simply a high level natural phenomenon?









http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/09/manhattan/miller-text


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

Philip said:


> Do you consider human processes such as deforestation, construction, etc. as "outside" phenomena _acting on_ nature? or do you consider human activity _as part_ of nature itself?
> 
> I spoke with countless people who believed that, for example, a bird's nest or beaver dam were 'natural', while human buildings were 'artificial'... I cannot help but link this view to a religiously tainted perspective; as if nature was given to us, to cherish and preserve. I don't share this point of view.
> 
> Intuitively, isn't human activity (or more generally, the influence of beings with developed cognitive faculties on their environment) simply a high level natural phenomenon?


It's not even "high level" - it's just a natural phenomenon. Those who say otherwise are seeking to promote people above other animals by virtue of their consciousness when the subject at hand is their behaviour.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Jeremy Marchant said:


> It's not even "high level"


Well, hierarchically... no?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

well, of course it's part of nature, that discussion is useless. The important thing is if these human processes will destroy the earth in the long term. We should avoid these kind of processes, not because nature was given to us, to cherish and preserve, but because without the earth we can't live!.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Are these unnatural?

























If creatures can do this and we call it natural, then making houses and other buildings are just what we do. Only, we add the "human" touch, which is creativity, order, even beauty.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

You guys are too reasonable... most people i've spoken with do not consider buildings natural.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Ants are doing natural things by building their homes and places to work. Humans are doing natural things by building our homes and places to work


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Philip said:


> You guys are too reasonable... most people i've spoken with do not consider buildings natural.


I agree with you. Human activities almost always are considered outside of nature simply because we have an intent that is presumed not part of other animal actions. "Natural" is a not a good word choice since it's very difficult to act outside the natural world. "Man-made" would be a better term to differentiate human activity from that of other species.

I do assume many people here at TC would consider most human activity unnatural, but maybe TC is an especially enlightened group.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I agree that this is a useless distinction. And although I can admit that even activites such as deforestation and industrial fishing are natural activities, they are not things I agree with, whereas I would never disagree or pass moral judgement on the behaviour of another species.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

aleazk said:


> well, of course it's part of nature, that discussion is useless. The important thing is if these human processes will destroy the earth in the long term. We should avoid these kind of processes, not because nature was given to us, to cherish and preserve, but because without the earth we can't live!.


I dunno. Maybe nature is suicidal? If so, who are we to intervene?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

"Natural" is such an artificial concept. We're all atoms.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I won't philosophise too much, except to say that human activity (incl. building) is natural but not all of it is close to nature. Eg. the Innuit peoples (called Eskimos before) of Alaska, their igloos are more natural than a skyscraper or the homes we live in our 'Western' cities. So too the tepees of the American native tribes of old, or the yurts (now called gurs) of peoples in Mongolia. So yes, building as an activity is natural, its just that with 'Modern' civilisation, it has gotten farther and farther away from nature. 

I don't know exactly where you draw the line, but living in the 30th floor of an apartment in a crowded & big city is not as natural as say living in a small house in a town or something like that, where you have a garden or sizeable backyard with trees (& maybe birds nests!). That's what I'm saying, the apartment style living is based not much on nature and what's best for the average person but things like economics, land prices, scarcity of land, developers making profits, etc. The native peoples saw themselves as custodians and part of the land, part of nature. They built from natural materials. We 'Modern' societies don't.

I don't see this as purely theory, I see what's going on in our cities as going towards the New York (or Hong Kong) model which is not a good model imo. Basically based on what developers want, not what people and communities being blighted by eyesores and poor planning want. But this may be another issue entirely.


----------



## SuperTonic (Jun 3, 2010)

There is a fundamental difference between humans and other animals that can't be ignored. There is a huge evolutionary gap between us and the next most advanced species. We have the ability to affect the environment on scales that no other species can even come close to. Add to that the fact that we have self-awareness and the ability to project possible outcomes into the future for our actions. 
Maybe we are just doing what comes naturally when we do things like cut down the rainforests. But one thing to consider; any species that destructively consumes everything in its environment will either moderate its behavior or go extinct in the long term. In that sense, we can think of any human behavior as being natural, and we will likely suffer the same consequences for unsustainable behavior as any other species. One would hope that we would be able to use our advanced self-awareness and foresight to avoid that fate.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

I don't know if I agree with the whole of this sentiment... 
but someone had a song-lyric about this, once:



> You cannot go against nature
> Because when you do
> Go against nature
> It's (a) part of nature, too. Love & Rockets- "No New Tale to Tell"


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

SuperTonic said:


> There is a fundamental difference between humans and other animals that can't be ignored. There is a huge evolutionary gap between us and the next most advanced species. We have the ability to affect the environment on scales that no other species can even come close to. Add to that the fact that we have self-awareness and the ability to project possible outcomes into the future for our actions.
> Maybe we are just doing what comes naturally when we do things like cut down the rainforests. But one thing to consider; any species that destructively consumes everything in its environment will either moderate its behavior or go extinct in the long term. In that sense, we can think of any human behavior as being natural, and we will likely suffer the same consequences for unsustainable behavior as any other species. One would hope that we would be able to use our advanced self-awareness and foresight to avoid that fate.


Ill agree with you that there is a large difference in _impact _between ourselves and our closest relatives, but evolutionarily/biologically speaking there is very little difference between us and Chimpanzees. These qualities that you mention of self-awareness, the ability to plan and the ability to shape the environment are shared by many other species, the only difference being one of scale.
while a beaver cuts down a tree and dams a river, it affects its environment. At the small scale at which a beaver operates, it even has the effect of increasing habitat diveristy, but if from some mutation or neurological illness, for example, the beaver were to cut down the entire forest, it would soon find that it can no longer survive and it will ultimately die.
Mankind in its current form is, similarly, a self-destroying cancer. And while one cannot argue that any of our actions are 'unnatural', one would hope that we could use the foresight you value so highly to ensure that our species can continue to live on a sustainable scale.

I dont wish to get philosphical, but I fear Schopenhauer was right in thinking that our very nature is what destroys us.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

aleazk said:


> ... The important thing is if these human processes will destroy the earth in the long term...


The planet will remain until it is subsumbed by the sun in five billion years' time* when the sun becomes a red giant and expands to a size greater than the orbit of the planet. What humanity (to coin a word) is hellbent on destroying is the environment _on _the planet which is conducive to the survival of humanity. Plenty of other species will survive and countless more will evolve over the millennia.

* Wikipedia has a more complex description


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Jeremy Marchant said:


> The planet will remain until it is subsumbed by the sun in five billion years' time* when the sun becomes a red giant and expands to a size greater than the orbit of the planet. What humanity (to coin a word) is hellbent on destroying is the environment _on _the planet which is conducive to the survival of humanity. Plenty of other species will survive and countless more will evolve over the millennia.
> 
> * Wikipedia has a more complex description


really you have taken "will destroy the earth" literally?. c'mon, man!.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

Since we have knowledge and records both are important. The natural instinct to build houses and also the knowledge of a low carbon footprint.

I think houses, deforestation, the industrial age and all that is natural.


----------

