So what? Who cares?
Idiocy, Compulsion, Gratitude, Nobility or Deception?
- Thread starter KUMAR5
- Start date
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Anything that exists be it grown as with wood or produced by complex industrial process such as screws or paint must be considered natural and for something to be considered unnatural it would need to come from someplace that was unnatural but if such a place did exist would it to by virtue of its existence also be rightfully considered natural leaving us with a seemingly unavoidable conclusion that there can be no state that can be considered or labled unnatural and therefore even the most unusual observation, say a dog driving a car, can at best be only seen as an exception to the normal rather than unnatural and certainly to describe a dog driving a car as exceptional rather than unnatural would be less judgemental of a dogs right or ability to drive a car.
Alex
I'm just wondering why we have to turn to nature to see what's right. Surely, some artificial things and practices are harmful, but a careful look at nature shows us that social insects like bees, wasps, ants, and termites create totally artificial environments to live in, just like humans create cities. If we all lived among the nature, we would ruin it. Cities are more environmentally friendly, in spite of their reputation. Eating natural foods like butter, lard, or coconut oil will lead to heart disease, and using artificial sweeteners instead of sugar is probably healthier.
Not only children but adults also love and enjoy with those innocent animals.
Simply, using all materials in natural form by using natural technique to build a shelter can only be taken as fully natural. May it be by using, dead bamboo, wood, sraw, cord,soil etc.
There is a difference between truth and rationals. If we will over grow, our needs also need to overgrow but nature is not responsible to such odd. Nature simply end o keep ino balance and truth can better be related to balance.
I am not advocaing since I may also be addicted, dependent or sick to modern odds, I am just trying to see the truth.
Sorry, but to fully describe as natural, should anyhing is also not in its natural form? Like eg. Fruits eaten raw are natural but its extracted juice is processed , so not in natural form. Moreover taking juice instead of fruits may have different affect.
What other species do, that is mostly natural but we do not. Eating butter or coconut oil is not perfectly natural(since processed) but milk, dry coconut is natural.
That will just be a personal choice.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
So you're advocating growing by setting ourselves back 60,000 years.
What is it about what you are proposing makes it "truth"?
As opposed to merely some arbitrary 'natural == better' platitude (from the label of a jar of peanut butter)?
Last edited:
Sometimes, yes. Sometimes we kill these innocent animals without much of a second thought.
?? Then it's manmade.
You're just playing semantic games here.
60000 back or so, kept us existed and progressed till today. We need to evaluate, by current pace, what we can be after 60000 years. May just be composed by cancer cells or extinct.
Good you agreed on OP.
It is not necessary, man made can not be also natural.
Your distinction of natural vs unnatural seems rather arbitrary and subjective. A bird builds a nest and it is natural, but a man builds a house and it is not natural?
Nope. To make it clear, it is NOT "Idiocy, Compulsion, Gratitude or Nobility on part of such animals and a Deception on part of their owners."
Do you eat meat?
Probably not. Artificial sweeteners and engineered fats or oils have a bad and worsening track record, compared with the "natural" plant and animal equivalents - turns out we didn't have the information until we did the research. The hippies and nature-woo folks fifty years ago were right, about that.
The categories "done by humans" and "done by non-human agents", abbreviated "artificial" and "natural", are kind of useful, if only as a shorthand for "things we have a thousand generations of varied experience with" and "things we're trying out to see if they are ok".
That may include innovations in behaviors and relationships, aspects of what are sometimes referred to as morals and ethics. Factory farming, industrial meat production, is not as "natural" as killing domesticated animals for food, in that sense - there's nothing odd or irrational about being wary of it, doubting its nature in various respects and cautioning against its consequences of all kinds.
Last edited:
If a man make in natural way, than only, it can be taken as natural.
No.
I think there can be three states: . 1. Primarily/Originally natural. 2. Secondary natural and 3. Unnatural. Natural should also mean: inherent sense of right and wrong, 1. we originally acquired, 2. we secondarily acquired . we didn't yet acquired. We can base accordingly.