Natural vs. Artificial

Wireclub Admin: From a dictionary:

artificial (är'tə-fĭsh'əl)
Made by humans; produced rather than natural.

I honestly take issue with that definition. Why should things made by man be considered not-natural? Didn't we spawn from nature the same way as everything else? As agents of nature, constructed by nature through natural selection, why for example, are our buildings considered not-natural while most people would say a bird's nest is natural?

I am bringing this up because I am tired people opposing progress in the terms of 'leaving things to nature'. Sorry to break the news to you all but... we are nature!

Defining Natural and Artificial as mutually exclusive terms is a grave mistake. People that oppose scientific progress find in this very definition the central dogma of their beliefs.

Natural and Artificial should always be considered complementing terms. Saying that something is Artificial shouldn't imply that it isn't Natural as well.

We all just have to face the that we are not better than nature - we are just a tiny part of it.

So, what do you think?

Cash: I was artificially inseminated...does that count???

Wireclub Admin: @Cash:
No, that is a rather innocent use of 'artificial'

The problem here is when people bring up the natural vs. artificial issue as a way to hinder scientific progress. If they had their way in the past, we would not have cars, trains and planes for example. They were all quite unnatural means of transportation back then...

Cash: I think I follow....I think.

x_Emma_x: Ok, I'm not religious, but if so may people believe that God made everything that exists then how is it 'natural' its all man-made isnt it???
We have resources and knowledge in order to evolve and improve things around us. So natural or man-made, its all necessary.
Also, i dont want to sound rude...but wow, ur not just a computer nut, go u!!!!

Cash: I wasn't really artificially inseminated btw...totally kidding. my parents were drunk and stupid just like everyone else's. LOL

Seriously though, I agree with your position on this subject.

Cash: Tornado is a "Natural" disaster, yes? and a bomb that explodes is a man made disaster.
But what if the ingredients used to make that very same bomb, are natural?

x_Emma_x: The bomb isnt natural itself as its been assembled by 'man'...does that help???

Cash: Yes, I suppose so. It's a fine line I think

franklin1950: i thought that this thread may have been about body enhancement . my bad .
artificial intelligence , for myself, the computer .
some times natural is prefered .... the artificial leg .
sometimes the natural needs assistance ..... viagra.
i think we are in a world were natural and artificial have to some extent a blended accepted norm .

x_Emma_x: Nah, its 'natural' or it isnt, its why we consider one less important than the oher that annoys me. Reminds me of the whole 'Nature-Nurture' debate.

Wireclub Admin: I think we have to abstract things a little bit to get to the core of the issue.

Angle #1
We created the bomb and detonated it, creating the disaster ourselves. Nature was not involved.

Angle #2
We, agents of nature, created the bomb using natural components and detonated it because of our natural tendency towards destructive behavior. Nature played its role in every single step of the process.

Another way to see this is:

Cow eat plants, digest it and then defecate, fertilizing a patch of terrain - therefore changing the environment. Cows are not very smart and their actions have a very low level of complexity and their actions are deemed as natural.

We are able to perform very complex actions. We can plan, gather and manipulate things to achieve our objectives. Somehow in the complexity of our acts, our actions cross the 'natural' barrier and become 'artificial'.

But, if complexity is what people use to define what is natural and what isn't, where is the line drawn? When would something cease to be natural and turn into something artificial?

Cash: I guess it depends on who's looking at the situation. opinion's vary.

Wireclub Admin: @franklin1950
The topic is just a discussion opener. Human enhancement is where I plan to go with this

x_Emma_x: I guess it could be due to the 'manipulation' if we take action in order to obtain a certain outcome its not a 'natural' occurrance. To be 'natural' it has to occur without calculated input from any added variance. As it then becomes an 'artifical' process/outcome.

Cash: wow...I am far too dumb for this topic...back to Moderating and watching cartoons......duh.

Wireclub Admin: @x_Emma_x:

"To be 'natural' it has to occur without calculated input from any added variance."

That is a good starting point, however, the animal brain of the cow is performing millions of calculations and dealing with the variance of a multitude of variables while searching for food and then acquiring it using its motor systems. Staying alive is no simple business. The cow then eats the grass, walk a few meters away and then defecates - changing the environment during both the beginning and the end of this action. Is this a natural occurrence?

x_Emma_x: The fact that the cow eats and looks for food and nutrients is a natural process in a sense, its survival. The method in which an animal or a human body then digests and disposes of this is also a natural process.
Again, for me, it refers back to the 'Nature-Nurture' debate, do we do things as a natual happening or do we learn the things we do by external stimulants???

Cash: This may not tie into this at all, because like I said, I am quite dumb. But what about cancer? Is cancer a natural disease, or man made?

One could argue that it is natural. It is just an unfortunate natural occurrence.

or One could say, that you did something that caused cancer....smoking, drinking etc....

Is Lung Cancer a man made cancer? where as brain cancer isn't?

Does it depend on the type of cancer?

Or am I just making no sense?

x_Emma_x: You do raise a valid point huni, yet i wouldnt dare comment or try to give an opinion, i'm far too ignorant on the subject. I guess that all diseases/illnesses can also be due to lifestyle etc, but again i'm not in a position to give a valid opinion.

Wireclub Admin: @x_Emma_x:

Sorry for going Socratic on you, I just want to explore this theme as much as I can - just tell me when to stop and I will

So are you saying that 'survival' is the criteria that define the natural/artificial boundary?

Following your ideas, I conclude:

The cow pursue food using its available (limited) capabilities and that is deemed a natural process.

A man pursue food using his available capabilities and that might or might not be a natural process - examples:

#1 - Man finds a fruit and eat the fruit. That is natural.
#2 - Man builds a complex tool or method to acquire food. That is artificial.

I think that takes us back to the complexity boundary where complexity dictates if something is natural or not.

What do you think?

Wireclub Admin: Just to restate my position here. I am arguing that everything is natural, even things that are man made.

This is the core of this argument. The fact that man-made and natural should never be considered mutually exclusive.

We are a tiny part of nature. I believe it is a little anthropocentristic of us to give our actions a special status, above nature itself.

Cash: well then in that case, I concur

Cash: Although, I have no idea what "anthropocentristic" means

Wireclub Admin: It means 'man as the center of everything'

Cash: hmm...learn somethin new everyday