IMHO, it has always been human arrogance that's caused the greatest non-natural catastrophes ....

In what way is human arrogance non-natural? What's the effective difference between humans and the cyanobacteria that irrevocably changed Earth some 2 billion years ago?

 

In what way is human arrogance non-natural? What's the effective difference between humans and the cyanobacteria that irrevocably changed Earth some 2 billion years ago?

Cyanobacteria have no sense of will, nor ego... among other things... they're just trying to survive at whatever cost. They're little more than a chemical reaction driven by the laws of physics.

Think of a parasite that ends up killing its host, and then of a symbion that thrives while also helping its host. I believe the relationship between humankind and nature should be like the latter...

 

Cyanobacteria have no sense of will, nor ego... among other things... they're just trying to survive at whatever cost. They're little more than a chemical reaction driven by the laws of physics.

So the distinguishing factor between natural and non-natural is some threshold level self-awareness? Cyanobacteria are below that threshold, so what they do is natural; humans are above, so what they do is non-natural -- is that the idea?

But isn't the particular level of self-awareness present in each organism a consequence of natural events? In other words, it is natural for cyanobacteria to be little more than chemical reactions, in the same way that it is natural for humans to have a sense of will, ego, etc. If you agree with this, then how can human arrogance -- as natural a phenomenon as the autonomous actions of cyanbacteria -- be the cause of non-natural things?

Can we entertain the notion that plastics are as natural as rocks?

It's also interesting to consider an alternate reality scenario. Suppose that 2 billion years ago cyanobacteria had happened to have enough self-awareness to realize that their more efficient method of metabolism was causing practically every other form of life on Earth to go extinct. Suppose they had considered the issue (as best they could) in terms of the greater-good and the health of the planet, and decided that aerobic metabolism was non-natural. Then almost every form of life that we now know (including us!) would not be here.

Think of a parasite that ends up killing its host, and then of a symbion that thrives while also helping its host. I believe the relationship between humankind and nature should be like the latter...

The fact that both types of parasites exist and thrive is one of innumerable examples that morality generally doesn't have any weight in the decision trees that life follows. Of course, I'd argue that human empathy is just as natural as human greed. I suppose from your perspective, where human arrogance is non-natural, then so is human kindness?

 

So the distinguishing factor between natural and non-natural is some threshold level self-awareness? Cyanobacteria are below that threshold, so what they do is natural; humans are above, so what they do is non-natural -- is that the idea?

But isn't the particular level of self-awareness present in each organism a consequence of natural events? In other words, it is natural for cyanobacteria to be little more than chemical reactions, in the same way that it is natural for humans to have a sense of will, ego, etc. If you agree with this, then how can human arrogance -- as natural a phenomenon as the autonomous actions of cyanbacteria -- be the cause of non-natural things?

Can we entertain the notion that plastics are as natural as rocks?

It's also interesting to consider an alternate reality scenario. Suppose that 2 billion years ago cyanobacteria had happened to have enough self-awareness to realize that their more efficient method of metabolism was causing practically every other form of life on Earth to go extinct. Suppose they had considered the issue (as best they could) in terms of the greater-good and the health of the planet, and decided that aerobic metabolism was non-natural. Then almost every form of life that we now know (including us!) would not be here.


The fact that both types of parasites exist and thrive is one of innumerable examples that morality generally doesn't have any weight in the decision trees that life follows. Of course, I'd argue that human empathy is just as natural as human greed. I suppose from your perspective, where human arrogance is non-natural, then so is human kindness?

First off, my intention was not to use the term "non-natural", but rather the term artificial. That is, man-made. On the other hand, I think it a waste of time diving into the waters of the might-have-beens. In this case the cyanobacteria taking over the world example.

Maybe we're talking past each other here, so I'm going to try to be more specific about stating my beliefs. I believe that humanity itself is part of nature, so we had either cooperate with it somehow, or face a catastrophe. This because it is a fact that we do not know everything (and I don't think we ever will) and so the existence of most organisms must be respected and be left alone to thrive by themselves because we never know what we might learn from them nor what sort of benefit we might extract from them in the future. Hell, I even believe that if a certain organism is facing extinction due to natural (non man-made, let's not get into semantics here) causes then we should either help it survive in a niche, or at least collect every bit of information (say, its DNA) to keep a record of its existence.

I believe that diversity of genes and of thought makes us stronger (and regarding thought, that is as long as we share the same core values... that's what I believe) ... Take the discovery of America by Columbus for example (again, let's not get into yet another fractal argument about the Vikings discovering it first). I was taught at school that the arrival of the Europeans in the continent contaminated it with the diseases they brought and caused horrible suffering ... as if their intention was to wage a biological war on its inhabitants in the first place! ... the fact is that the native american population had been separated from the rest of humanity for such a long time that they never developed the antibodies and defenses against such infections, and suffered because of it. Was this conflagration man-made? ... I believe it was not... but was rather an inevitable event caused by the meeting of two biologically different populations that would've happened sooner or later ... and if later, it could've been even worse.

But what most people don't know was that their isolation from the rest of the world was not the only factor of their susceptibility to illness, but also the fact that all of the inhabitants of the entire American continent descend from a pool of DNA belonging to barely 200 people.... so there, it was their lack of genetic diversity that also contributed to their being more affected by the diseases brought by the Europeans.

Have you read 1493, by Charles C Mann? ... it's an excellent book that gives a big-picture perspective on the events I've just described.

 

Have you read 1493, by Charles C Mann? ... it's an excellent book that gives a big-picture perspective on the events I've just described.

Co-incidentally this was on a recent order I made from Abebooks, it's on its way!
I also read a brief history of the Caribean after it was discovered by the Spanish on the way to south America, and all the politics between the seafaring nations that followed them in.
Covered the demise of the Caribs, who evidently were a very attractive race of people, made even more attractive by sailors that had been at sea for several months, and inevitabally spread their diseases.
Max.

 

Co-incidentally this was on a recent order I made from Abebooks, it's on its way!
I also read a brief history of the Caribean after it was discovered by the Spanish on the way to south America, and all the politics between the seafaring nations that followed them in.
Covered the demise of the Caribs, who evidently were a very attractive race of people, made even more attractive by sailors that had been at sea for several months, and inevitabally spread their diseases.
Max.

Another excellent book I recommend is "Historia de la conquista de la Nueva España" by Bernal Díaz del Castillo, who was a soldier marching along Cortés army during the conquest of Mexico. It gives a very realistic account (both good and bad, plus one has to read between the lines) of what the native civilization was like during that era.

 

Hello,

Here you can download it from the Internet Archive as Opensource:
https://archive.org/details/CharlesC.Mann1493UncoveringTheNewWorldColumbusCreated
Bertus

 

I much prefer reading the hard copy(s).
Never really got in to Kindle, et al.
Max.

 

First off, my intention was not to use the term "non-natural", but rather the term artificial. That is, man-made. On the other hand, I think it a waste of time diving into the waters of the might-have-beens. In this case the cyanobacteria taking over the world, example.

I'd like to emphasize that my spotlight on the distinction between natural and non-natural wasn't to engage in a semantics debate. Rather, I believe that many people take for granted that humanity is not part of nature, that there is somehow a difference between what is made-made and what is natural. In topics such as this I think it's important to bring this potential background dualism to the front, because within it lies a morass of confusing and often contradictory sentiments.

As for pondering might-have-beens, I think it has value. But to be clear, the cyanobacteria did take over the world by releasing oxygen, which was very beneficial to them, but poisonous to almost every other form of life at the time. The salient point is that, through cyanobacteria, life found a more efficient way to expand, even if it meant killing off 99% of other life to take advantage of this new pathway.

Maybe we're talking past each other here, so I'm going to try to be more specific about stating my beliefs. I believe that humanity itself is part of nature, so we had either cooperate with it somehow, or face a catastrophe.

I pause here because the phrase "cooperate with nature" seems loaded and unclear. We seem to agree that everything is natural, so in what sense is one part of nature not cooperating with another? This is a sincere question, as I believe trying to answer it will get to the heart of the matter. To improve the focus, I'd prefer if you could answer it with examples from animals that don't include humans. And if this is impossible -- if you believe that humans are the only part of nature that is capable of being not cooperative with nature -- then we can focus on that aspect more precisely.

This because it is a fact that we do not know everything (and I don't think we ever will) and so the existence of most organisms must be respected and be left alone to thrive by themselves because we never know what we might learn from them nor what sort of benefit we might extract from them in the future. Hell, I even believe that if a certain organism is facing extinction due to natural (non man-made, let's not get into semantics here) causes then we should either help it survive in a niche, or at least collect every bit of information (say, its DNA) to keep a record of its existence.

This line of thought feels decidedly utilitarian, aimed toward some future benefit for humanity, a sort of "protect our environment as much as we can because we don't know what will happen in the future" argument. On one hand, this seems like the ultimate form of human arrogance -- the environment is ours to shape as best suits our needs. In this sense, saving a soon-to-be extinct species is anti-cooperative with nature, because nature's way is to kill off that which can't adapt. On the other hand, life doesn't have favorites when it comes to species, and every single one is trying its best to fill the void with its version of genetic code. In this sense, we're being perfectly natural by trying to shape the environment to best suit us; it seems pretty clear that most other species would do it if they had the ability. And in this same sense, it is again arrogance to think that we have any control over such things.

I emphasize that I didn't really make a point in the previous paragraph; I'm just thinking aloud, as it were.

I believe that diversity of genes and of thought makes us stronger (and regarding thought, that is as long as we share the same core values... that's what I believe) ... Take the discovery of America by Columbus for example (again, let's not get into yet another fractal argument about the Vikings discovering it first). I was taught at school that the arrival of the Europeans in the continent contaminated it with the diseases they brought and caused horrible suffering ... as if their intention was to wage a biological war on its inhabitants in the first place! ... the fact is that the native american population had been separated from the rest of humanity for such a long time that they never developed the antibodies and defenses against such infections, and suffered because of it. Was this conflagration man-made? ... I believe it was not... but was rather an inevitable event caused by the meeting of two biologically different populations that would've happened sooner or later ... and if later, it could've been even worse.

But what most people don't know was that their isolation from the rest of the world was not the only factor of their susceptibility to illness, but also the fact that all of the inhabitants of the entire American continent descend from a pool of DNA belonging to barely 200 people.... so there, it was their lack of genetic diversity that also contributed to their being more affected by the diseases brought by the Europeans.

This feels like it belongs to a different (though related) conversation.

 

To add to cmartinez, and get back to the original question, we are at a point where crispr is used to modify genes, parents pass on genetic material who would otherwise have never been able to do so through artificial means (surrogacy, etc). Vaccines are pushed on population of dubious efficacy. What do we know of our own make-up? If you change one gene, what is the cascade effect? We are currently experimenting on ourselves, for the greater good? I have come to a conclusion that this is largely driven by a few individuals with money who are afraid of death. I am sorry for them.

Nature has a way of balancing things out. So this problem will be solved. We developed antibiotics - bacteria evolved. We are running out of antibiotics. That is nature in action. We should learn the lesson - nature was her first. It will remain her after we are gone.

 

This line of thought feels decidedly utilitarian, aimed toward some future benefit for humanity, a sort of "protect our environment as much as we can because we don't know what will happen in the future" argument. On one hand, this seems like the ultimate form of human arrogance -- the environment is ours to shape as best suits our needs. In this sense, saving a soon-to-be extinct species is anti-cooperative with nature, because nature's way is to kill off that which can't adapt. On the other hand, life doesn't have favorites when it comes to species, and every single one is trying its best to fill the void with its version of genetic code. In this sense, we're being perfectly natural by trying to shape the environment to best suit us; it seems pretty clear that most other species would do it if they had the ability. And in this same sense, it is again arrogance to think that we have any control over such things.

My intention was not to make a utilitarian statement... let me see if I can clarify my thoughts here ... Yes, of course I find the advancement of the human species as something desirable, but not at the expense of suppressing other life forms that although they're not "our friends", they're not our enemies either. As for our "enemies" (think HIV virus), should we completely obliterate them from existence? ... no, I think we should at least keep samples of them as sources of valuable information. On the other hand, who are we to decide where the evolution of a different species should stop? How do we know that no bird species will ever become as capable of reasoning and abstraction as humans in the future? ... a relationship with such an organism could be enormously beneficial for both species... it would be a perfectly utilitarian (for lack of a better word, at least for me) relationship that could work both ways.

I emphasize that I didn't really make a point in the previous paragraph; I'm just thinking aloud, as it were.

I understand ... I'm also thinking (even rambling) out loud here... see what I can learn from others, and from myself... I very much enjoy these sort of discussions/conversations.

 

I'd like to emphasize that my spotlight on the distinction between natural and non-natural wasn't to engage in a semantics debate. Rather, I believe that many people take for granted that humanity is not part of nature, that there is somehow a difference between what is made-made and what is natural. In topics such as this I think it's important to bring this potential background dualism to the front, because within it lies a morass of confusing and often contradictory sentiments.

As for pondering might-have-beens, I think it has value. But to be clear, the cyanobacteria did take over the world by releasing oxygen, which was very beneficial to them, but poisonous to almost every other form of life at the time. The salient point is that, through cyanobacteria, life found a more efficient way to expand, even if it meant killing off 99% of other life to take advantage of this new pathway.


I pause here because the phrase "cooperate with nature" seems loaded and unclear. We seem to agree that everything is natural, so in what sense is one part of nature not cooperating with another? This is a sincere question, as I believe trying to answer it will get to the heart of the matter. To improve the focus, I'd prefer if you could answer it with examples from animals that don't include humans. And if this is impossible -- if you believe that humans are the only part of nature that is capable of being not cooperative with nature -- then we can focus on that aspect more precisely.


This line of thought feels decidedly utilitarian, aimed toward some future benefit for humanity, a sort of "protect our environment as much as we can because we don't know what will happen in the future" argument. On one hand, this seems like the ultimate form of human arrogance -- the environment is ours to shape as best suits our needs. In this sense, saving a soon-to-be extinct species is anti-cooperative with nature, because nature's way is to kill off that which can't adapt. On the other hand, life doesn't have favorites when it comes to species, and every single one is trying its best to fill the void with its version of genetic code. In this sense, we're being perfectly natural by trying to shape the environment to best suit us; it seems pretty clear that most other species would do it if they had the ability. And in this same sense, it is again arrogance to think that we have any control over such things.

I emphasize that I didn't really make a point in the previous paragraph; I'm just thinking aloud, as it were.


This feels like it belongs to a different (though related) conversation.

Our decisions as a society are based on economic and religious constraints. Do you consider those as arising from natural conditions, or something else?

Is a 65 year old woman having a child natural? Are test tube babies natural? Is a drive to have genetic child at all cost natural or driven by societal pressures?

Most of our actions are driven by societal pressures. Is our large interconnected society natural? I believe it is not. Many civilizations have collapsed because they became too large and we will not be an exception.

p.s. i am also rambling. I like this thread, this topic has been on my mind a lot lately

 

How do we know that no bird species will ever become as capable of reasoning and abstraction as humans in the future? ...

Apparently we already do know, Recent studies on different species of birds found them very capable of reasoning, particularly the Corvids of Australia.
They discovered complex behaviours such as grieving, deception, problem solving and the use of tools. Many Australian birds cooperate and defend each other, and exceptional ones go fishing by throwing breadcrumbs in the water,
It has generally been found that it is not due to the size of the brain per-se, but the brains size in relation to the body.
The recent documentary displaying their results were really impresive.
So much for the expression 'Bird Brain'
Max.

 

Wait a minute... this ain't natural... we're having a civilized discussion with no Trolls involved! ...

Or is it just a matter of time before one arrives and spoils the party?

 

Our decisions as a society are based on economic and religious constraints. Do you consider those as arising from natural conditions, or something else?

Is a 65 year old woman having a child natural? Are test tube babies natural? Is a drive to have genetic child at all cost natural or driven by societal pressures?

Most of our actions are driven by societal pressures. Is our large interconnected society natural? I believe it is not. Many civilizations have collapsed because they became too large and we will not be an exception.

p.s. i am also rambling. I like this thread, this topic has been on my mind a lot lately

In my view, the set of non-natural things is empty. To take one example, there is nothing less natural about test tube insemination than any of the myriad other ways that nature has found to bring sperm and egg cells together.

 

Have you read 1493, by Charles C Mann? ..

Just finished reading one of his other books last month,1491, about all of the other Europeans that were here (discoverd?) America before Columbus really discovered it. Really discovered is a sarcastic remark, since it was known about long before he got in the history books.

 

Just finished reading one of his other books last month,1491, about all of the other Europeans that were here (discoverd?) America before Columbus really discovered it. Really discovered is a sarcastic remark, since it was known about long before he got in the history books.

I also read 1491 ... but I liked 1493 better because of its more anecdotal style, and it contains much more information regarding the global economic and ecological impact of the event.

 

Apparently we already do know, Recent studies on different species of birds found them very capable of reasoning, particularly the Corvids of Australia.
They discovered complex behaviours such as grieving, deception, problem solving and the use of tools. Many Australian birds cooperate and defend each other, and exceptional ones go fishing by throwing breadcrumbs in the water,
It has generally been found that it is not due to the size of the brain per-se, but the brains size in relation to the body.
The recent documentary displaying their results were really impresive.
So much for the expression 'Bird Brain'
Max.

That is why my running theory that humanity is getting dumber every year - we are artificially increasing our body mass with machines and our brain is not getting any bigger. Therefore we are getting dumber

On another note,

Orcas are another group of animals that have very complex social groups. They have been seen playing with their food, so cruelty is not uniquely human... But neither is language (if you discount written). Orcas have distinct songs, wolves have complex rituals that are passed down through their packs, elephants and all sorts of other animals have very complex societies.

Humans of course came up with the concept of money and worship and I dont think it served us very well - multiple cycles of growth and collapse by our own hand.

 

Since long time I've been feeling against considering the irruption of Spaniards in so many places in America as a discovery but, being honest, it was so for a lot of people who had not vikings among their ancestors...

After all, when I learnt so many things it was actually a "discovery" no matter how inane, natural or well know was for those around me.

 

Humans of course came up with the concept of money...

The alternative to dealing with money is dealing with guns (or clubs, or stones, or whatever).

While I can shoot well, I'd rather trade my services for cash, and my cash for that which I need.