Idiocy, Compulsion, Gratitude, Nobility or Deception?

KUMAR5 said:
Living in unnatural environment is usually not natural. That is usually due to some ease, compulsion or greed. Should not be real health interest.
Click to expand...
Well, given that rats who live in the human "unnatural environment" do a lot better than rats in the wild, that's not really true. (Unless you define "wanting to survive" as a "compulsion.")

Sounds like you believe in the "noble savage" myth - that being in a 'natural' state is superior, and organisms that live that way are healthier, happier, longer lived etc. Again, it would help you to get out into the real world and see how nature treats animals. (Hint - it is not "altruistic" or "friendly" or "giving.")
 
billvon said:
Well, given that rats who live in the human "unnatural environment" do a lot better than rats in the wild, that's not really true. (Unless you define "wanting to survive" as a "compulsion.")

Sounds like you believe in the "noble savage" myth - that being in a 'natural' state is superior, and organisms that live that way are healthier, happier, longer lived etc. Again, it would help you to get out into the real world and see how nature treats animals. (Hint - it is not "altruistic" or "friendly" or "giving.")
Click to expand...
I simply calculate by, nature kept us existed and healthy since millions of years. Are we sure unnature will do it or better than it? We may also need to check, if nature's odd are still in our real interest or not?
 
DaveC426913 said:
So, if we made our houses out of fallen branches, the innocent bunnies and fawns would not be deceived by us?
Click to expand...
Yes. Mostly consicious acts should be relevent to deception. If we will break or cut branches of tree, then it will be consicious act.
 
KUMAR5 said:
I simply calculate by, nature kept us existed and healthy since millions of years.
Click to expand...
No, it didn't. Again, that's the "noble savage" myth. Early man lived a short and painful life full of crippling disease, pestilence and early death. Most people by age 25 had few teeth left; by age 30 they were dead. Infant mortality was very high. Average lifespans worldwide did not exceed 40 until the 20th century.
Are we sure unnature will do it or better than it? We may also need to check, if nature's odd are still in our real interest or not?
Click to expand...
Depends on what you call "unnature." Is "unnature" clothing, shelter, water filtration systems, antibiotics and vaccines? Then "unnature" is very much in our real interest, if your interests include living a long and healthy life.
 
billvon said:
No, it didn't. Again, that's the "noble savage" myth. Early man lived a short and painful life full of crippling disease, pestilence and early death. Most people by age 25 had few teeth left; by age 30 they were dead. Infant mortality was very high. Average lifespans worldwide did not exceed 40 until the 20th century.

Depends on what you call "unnature." Is "unnature" clothing, shelter, water filtration systems, antibiotics and vaccines? Then "unnature" is very much in our real interest, if your interests include living a long and healthy life.
Click to expand...
Ok. Only humans are dependent on unnature.
 
spidergoat said:
Social insects also create their own artificial environments.
Click to expand...
billvon said:
And insects, and swallows, and chimpanzees, and crows. We are in good company.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I don't actually disagree, but every once in a while I try to do this perspective argument about how nothing is specifically "unnatural", and people get it, of course, but they still draw a practical distinction 'twixt a plastic bottle and a chimpanzee playing lik-em-stik with ants and a long stalk of grass. Or dung beetles with, well, dung (cf. Huxley, Jesting Pilate). Or, y'know, a circuit board and whatever it is ants do with formic acid.

Similarly, I get the difference between calling someone on a mobile phone and the idea that trees of disparate species can communicate and even exchange resources through root networks.

Besides, when else do I get to write the joke about the elephant manufacturing and firing a gun instead of grabbing a quadriplegic with its trunk to use as a bludgeon?

Okay, okay, okay. Still, though, the crows are scary, but I don't think I was surprised, all things considered. It's the part where they talk about you that feels creepy.
 
KUMAR5 said:
I simply calculate by, nature kept us existed and healthy since millions of years.
Click to expand...
No.
For one, humans have only been around for a few 100,000 years.
And in that time, many could be expected to die within hours or days of childbirth. Those that survived infancy could expect a lifespan of 30 or 40 years, if they're lucky.
Healthy we were not.
 
DaveC426913 said:
No.
For one, humans have only been around for a few 100,000 years.
And in that time, many could be expected to die within hours or days of childbirth. Those that survived infancy could expect a lifespan of 30 or 40 years, if they're lucky.
Healthy we were not.
Click to expand...
Was that natural to us?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top