neverclear5 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 I'm sick of all this bollocks about "messing with nature" and "thats not natural" everytime someone wants to research something new. Cars arn't natural. Plastic isn't natural. You know what is natural? If a man breaks into a house, kills the man and his children living there, rapes the women, and claims the house and women as his property. Thats perfectly natural. It happens in nature all the time. It's a good way of ensuring that your genetic material gets passed on. 75% of pregnancies in chettah's are a result of gang rape. Brothers move around together and attack lone females, meaning that even if the child isn't yours, it's father has 50% the same DNA as you so some of your genes are still passed on. All this is perfectly natural, even benificial to the species. NATURAL DOES NOT EQUAL GOOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 I agree. And it's mostly religious people who have problems with "unnatural" things anyway. It is perfectly natural for human beings to investigate new things. Humans are curious by nature. What's unnatural is squashing that curiousity and telling people they shouldn't research anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Friendly Misanthrope Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Even things considered artificial like buildings, plastics, and machines are all perfectly natural. They are simply byproducts of living organisms, namely humans. I am of the opinion that nothing that exists can be unnatural (or supernatural), as if it exists in or affects nature, it is then by definition natural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 Even things considered artificial like buildings, plastics, and machines are all perfectly natural. They are simply byproducts of living organisms, namely humans. I am of the opinion that nothing that exists can be unnatural (or supernatural), as if it exists in or affects nature, it is then by definition natural. Good point. technically yes. But many people try and remove human endevour from the word and what you get left is still not a glorious thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Paineful Truth Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Friendly Misanthrope is right as far as s/he goes. It is the opposite of supernatural, but it is also defined as something not artificial in origin, i.e. not man made. This is the meaning I applied to it in the original post. What threw me was Amethyst's response saying that religious people have problems with "unnatural" things, when they are the ones who promote the supernatural. As for the non-artificial definition, environmentalists are the largest group of supporters of natural nature since man is unnatural and out of place, therefore has less of a right to exist in the food chain--especially at the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 NATURAL DOES NOT EQUAL GOOD. It all started with quack cures beginning in the mid 1800's. It continues to this day with the "alternative" quacks claiming that their snake oil is "natural" and anything Western, evidence based, medicine is un natural and bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Even things considered artificial like buildings, plastics, and machines are all perfectly natural. They are simply byproducts of living organisms, namely humans. I am of the opinion that nothing that exists can be unnatural (or supernatural), as if it exists in or affects nature, it is then by definition natural. Good point. technically yes. But many people try and remove human endevour from the word and what you get left is still not a glorious thing. I agree with Friendly Misanthrope. It seems to me that much of the problem with Christianity is that it denies that we (humans) and our works are a part of nature. I think that if we could see ourselves as being one with nature then our artifacts would have a more harmonious quality about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 NATURAL DOES NOT EQUAL GOOD. It all started with quack cures beginning in the mid 1800's. It continues to this day with the "alternative" quacks claiming that their snake oil is "natural" and anything Western, evidence based, medicine is un natural and bad. 100% agree. Some of it works but I love the people who wont take acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) because it's a chemical and instead chew willow bark, active ingredient ................salicylic acid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 100% agree. Some of it works but I love the people who wont take salicylic acid (aspirin) because it's a chemical and instead chew willow bark, active ingredient ................salicylic acid! They ignore the fact that everything, except the base elements, is made up of chemicals. Aspirin is made up of chemicals, some organic. Organic is good. Poison hemlock is natural and organic.... but you wouldn't want to make a salad out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 As for the non-artificial definition, environmentalists are the largest group of supporters of natural nature since man is unnatural and out of place, therefore has less of a right to exist in the food chain--especially at the top. Erm.. you're not advocating that position yourself, are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 ....As for the non-artificial definition, environmentalists are the largest group of supporters of natural nature since man is unnatural and out of place, therefore has less of a right to exist in the food chain--especially at the top. As a tree hugger, and a tree spiker, and active in those circles, I know of no one in that community that would say that. Maybe I just hang out with the more intelligent environmentalists, but we thoroughly acknowledge that humans are 100% natural. We are animals and we are found in nature. We are not a separate creation as you wrongly claim. Just because some consider us to be at the top of some food chain (by the way, that's a term that is passe - nature's a web, not a chain) does not give us the right to destroy at will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Dave.. You say you work for some agency of Gov dot org and then publicly tell the world you are a "spiker"? Spikers caught in act out here in the Wallowa-Whitman/Blue Mts, using either steel or ceramic get the 4's given to them. They quickly become the droppings at the bottom of the food webbing. Don't tell me you take the Kings geld yet fuck up the Kings trees.. kFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Dave.. You say you work for some agency of Gov dot org and then publicly tell the world you are a "spiker"? Yes, and proud of it too. If a group of redneck bozos care more for making a profit than they do 1000 year old trees, then I care little about what they threaten to do to more enlightened people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Dave, You are proud of committing several Federally prosecutable offenses leading to felony time and incarceration? "Proud of being a spiker?" Hope you aren't on the clock for Unkle Sham while you are making these posts. Desist in admitting publicly on Ex-Christian Dot Net your potentially criminal activities, decease using Dave Vanallen's services describing things that will help investigative Agencies to find Probable Cause and shut this site down chasing your messages. As far as I am concerned you are a willing troll of the worst kind and will be placed on Mod Approval for posting until further noice. kevinL, Staff, ExChristian Dot Net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Paineful Truth Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Woodsmoke wrote: Erm.. you're not advocating that position yourself, are you?Hardly. Dave wrote: As a tree hugger, and a tree spiker, and active in those circles, I know of no one in that community that would say that. By hugging and spiking trees, you are advocating that position, even if you or they don't come out and say it. Maybe I just hang out with the more intelligent environmentalists, but we thoroughly acknowledge that humans are 100% natural. We are animals and we are found in nature. We are not a separate creation as you wrongly claim.I'm not claiming that. Just the opposite. But I do know environmentalists who do believe that way, family members even. ...does not give us the right to destroy at will. Isn't that the predator's prerogative in the natural animal world? I don't advocate the wholesale unnecessary slaughter of anything (besides mosquitoes, cockroaches and such), and the macho trophy cults are abhorrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 I agree. Nature isn't all about fluffy-bunnies and baby animals. Nature is a hard and cruel place, as much so as it is beautiful. There is nothing unnatural about humans making houses, or plastic, or anything else. Animals make things, too - many creatures do. It's just easy to consider ourselves "unnatural" since many humans are used to looking at humanity like it's some fucked-up cancer on the face of the globe, not simply another part of nature, trying to survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Exactly. Personally, I see the primal "cruelty" of nature as part and parcel of--and a great enhancement to--its beauty. I'm probably very odd compared to the average U.S. kid, but I grew up watching Nature, Nova and National Geographic every opportunity I got. Hell, I happily eschewed more conventional "child" fare like cartoons in favor of them. One of the many things I learned from those programs was an appreciation for the whole of nature. Not only do "those nasty predators" play an absolutely vital role in the natural order, they are full of a mesmerizing beauty all their own. Neither can I nor would I want to imagine a world without them. Thanks for the answer, Paineful. I didn't think you would actually be advocating that position, but the wording made it unclear. [The Paineful Truth]I don't advocate the wholesale unnecessary slaughter of anything (besides mosquitoes, cockroaches and such) If you'll allow me to wax environmental for a moment, as I get the feeling the part in parenthesis isn't said in all seriousness... I actually have to disagree with you there about the eradication of perceived "pests." Don't get me wrong, I hate mosquitoes as much as anyone, and I wouldn't hesitate to phone the exterminator if I found 'roaches in my house; but despite all my personal biases, my understanding of the natural order (unfortunately) leads me to conclude the wholesale slaughter of any species from the Earth would be a Bad Thing. Much as we may hate the little fuckers, creatures such as mosquitoes and cockroaches do play an important part in the grand scheme of things (in these cases, as food for other animals)--if they didn't, it's unlikely they'd still be here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sage Nabooru Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 For me, natural is accepting the fact that if nature really was in charge, we would take our rank among the other animals as food sources for predators. I totally advocate natural. It's my life. I remember reading a news article describing a college course for agricultural technicians. They had to spray something on the plants, that was so dangerous they had to wear science-fiction-movie protective suits, including hoods covering the head. Then they shipped it off to the supermarket. I eat organic simply because I don't trust The Man who grows the regular stuff. Getting back to my first point, however....."Natural" is when a bunch of tourists get mauled by a bear, and the bear DOESN'T get shot. Perhaps if humans really wanted to enjoy nature and not just pretend to in a camper, they would live with the reality that they're meat just like anything else. Setting up a campsite filled with foods in the woods is doing so at your own risk. Fair game, I say. If you really appreciate the glories of the national parks, you should be willing to give your life for it. Now when you get into the deepest mysteries of biology and medical science, I do believe lines have to be drawn. I don't think life should be created to fit some Hollywood parents' preconcieved notion of what a "cute" baby looks like, nor do I think that life should be created, then killed, to preserve life, because in the end the body count is the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Paineful Truth Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 If you'll allow me to wax environmental for a moment, as I get the feeling the part in parenthesis isn't said in all seriousness... Yes and no. I'd like to get rid of the little buggers, but right now it's not possible, so I can vent safely for now. But if there comes a time when he do have that power, then we'll have to look real close at it. We'd have to look a the big picture, such as what benefit they might provide, and the danger of wiping them out. We have no compunctions against wiping out viruses and bacteria, and flora and fauna of every type imaginable have disappeared over the eons and continue to do so with much regularity, with or without our help. And we mustn't put ourselves in the position of saying its beneficial or at least not worthy of our judgment if it happens naturally, but it's wrong if we are the agents of their extinction. If we can remove the emotion from the judgment needed for makings such a decision as an intentional extinction (a huge IF), I believe we can one day have the ability to do so without danger to the overall ecosphere--particularly given all the billions of extinctions that have occurred so far. As an example, fire ants and killer bees have invaded North America. That indicates we should be able to wipe them out without any problems at least in North America, and probably elsewhere. And what about just the anopheles mosquito which carries malaria, and the tsetse fly which carries sleeping sickness. If we can wipe something out of a whole region with no repercussions, why not everywhere? But like I say, we don't have to worry about it right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Friendly Misanthrope Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 As an example, fire ants and killer bees have invaded North America. Fire ants....tell me about it. Ever since I was swarmed by them as a young pup, I have been engaged in personal jihad to wipe those little buggers from the face of the earth (or at least my lawn)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartP Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Not natural - fillings in your teeth and dental repair. Not natural - pacemakers and angeoplasty Not natural - chemically altering the conmposition of food by heat (also called cooking it) I thought of a whole bunch of other "not natural" stuff but realised that most of them already had a following of wierdos that are anti. Hell, there's even a mob that don't like food being cooked. A raw food diet is not just good for you - it’s also good science! You don’t have to take our word for it, have “faith” or trust the latest food pundit. Science proves that cooking not only destroys nutrition and enzymes, but chemically changes foods from the substances we need for health into free-radicals and poisons that destroy our health! Finally the mainstream is finding out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Yes and no. I'd like to get rid of the little buggers, but right now it's not possible, so I can vent safely for now. But if there comes a time when he do have that power, then we'll have to look real close at it. We'd have to look a the big picture, such as what benefit they might provide, and the danger of wiping them out. We have no compunctions against wiping out viruses and bacteria, and flora and fauna of every type imaginable have disappeared over the eons and continue to do so with much regularity, with or without our help. And we mustn't put ourselves in the position of saying its beneficial or at least not worthy of our judgment if it happens naturally, but it's wrong if we are the agents of their extinction. If we can remove the emotion from the judgment needed for makings such a decision as an intentional extinction (a huge IF), I believe we can one day have the ability to do so without danger to the overall ecosphere--particularly given all the billions of extinctions that have occurred so far. Good point. I should have expressed myself better; I was referring to exactly the kind of emotionally-driven decision-making you referred to--i.e. getting rid of all mosquitoes without consideration for the ramifications it may have on the natural order simply because we perceive them as pests. Approaching it from a more logical mindset, as you proposed, I can agree with more. I'm not completely sold on the idea that humans should decide for the rest of the living natural world who lives and who dies, but being as we've been taking it upon ourselves to do just that in one form or another for many thousands of years now, I certainly agree it's best that we at least work to make those decisions from an informed and rational frame of mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin webmdave Posted January 7, 2007 Admin Share Posted January 7, 2007 Everything on Earth is made out of natural things that are found on Earth. At the elemental level, everything on Earth is made out of elements. Therefore, everything is basically natural. What would be unnatural? Man-made things? But those are still natural at the atomic level, unless we've begun making things out of something other than elements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Dave, shhh! You don't want the black helicopters to start monitoring Ex-C again, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts