Red Bull Unrailistic | LIVE Broadcast

Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Everything We Do is Natural.

profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Is human development any different than other forms of development caused by other animals?

A 5 story parking garage isn't considered to be "nature" because it was built by humans, but an anthill is "natural" even though it was built by hoards of tiny ants with instinctual engineering degrees.

Some have told me that the human psyche is what differentiates us from other animals. But that brings up another question: is our current state of mind a natural occurrence? How is the progression of the foundation of our social, emotional, and logical selves any different than the evolution of another species?

Somebody please help me organize my brain goober.
Jan 19 2009 7:30PM
0 0
profile picture
yellav
Posts: 10056 - Karma: 1,217
google invasive species or destructive species
Jan 19 2009 8:29PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
how is that different? Other animals build ecosystems, or "towns" in various places just as humans do.
Jan 19 2009 8:32PM
0 0
profile picture
EastScratchSkier
Posts: 186 - Karma: 16
natural in the sense of part of nature? yes. natural in the sense of normal in society? fuck no
Jan 19 2009 8:35PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Trans-human communication in itself is flawed in the same way. Every word has a different meaning or connotation to each individual who acknowledges it, due to everybody being raised under different circumstances and influence. And because of this flaw in our language, humans are never really on the same plane as each other due to our diversity in frame of reference. sure, we may both mutually understand what each other is saying in a logical sense, but you and I are harvesting completely different emotions and references to past events in our lives with each word we hear each other say.

With that said, I believe that comprehending the hierarchy of human beings and other animals shouldn't be any more difficult than a traditional philosophical brainstorm about something slightly more human-oriented and conventional.
Jan 19 2009 8:39PM
0 0
profile picture
Ski311
Posts: 595 - Karma: 8
dude, chill out. they dont travel mass distances around the globe to do it though. they said forget it when pangea broke up, anything else was just out of necesity in the preditory/prey cenario of life. and a meteor will be by to take us all out soon enough.
Jan 19 2009 8:40PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
And besides, who's to say that it's in a physical sense? Does that mean a high school quarterback is dominant over Einstein or Copernicus?
Jan 19 2009 8:42PM
0 0
profile picture
TerraceSkier18
Posts: 120 - Karma: 11
All the things we do are natural we just use a different way of getting to these natural places. Animals use what they have made to do that and we use what we have made. Does this make us better than animals or other organisms? No we just think this because we have the mind to create all these things and the resources. It is also in peoples mindset if they thing that they are better then they will think that and destroy the other species.
Jan 19 2009 8:42PM
0 0
profile picture
word-sauce
Posts: 1151 - Karma: 11
yes but in the end i think we developed through evolution a much more important part then animals. In a certain way we are better because we can realize the advantages other animals have and mimic them, or in the early stages of our evolution make tools to overpower them. For example animals that can run faster, well we built the car. Navigating north and south; we invented the compass e.t.c. That's only saying that maybe we just happened to be the lucky animal that evolved better, just like a shark probably has more chance to survive than a goldfish; we are still animals.
Jan 19 2009 8:45PM
0 0
profile picture
word-sauce
Posts: 1151 - Karma: 11

and btw you just blew my mind lolz

Jan 19 2009 8:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Ski311
Posts: 595 - Karma: 8

answer this question. did hitler have a dog? and if it did, which did he choose. food or love?

solution: animals dont comit mass genocide in the name of territory.

this thread is over.

................. meteor

Jan 19 2009 8:51PM
0 0
profile picture
Jay31
Posts: 796 - Karma: 11
Another thing to note is that everything we know is based on what us humans have conceived.  We only assume most things we know based on what we observe other creatures do.  All we know comes from words and ideas that are made by humans, so all we know is human invention and could be completely and utterly wrong.  There is no proof that what we think we know is wrong, and is possibly so because somebody in the past perceived what he/she witnessed wrong and made a human idea based around it. 
Jan 19 2009 8:52PM
0 0
profile picture
Ski311
Posts: 595 - Karma: 8
and thats why we havent been back to the moon.
Jan 19 2009 8:55PM
0 0
profile picture
Jay31
Posts: 796 - Karma: 11
Another point towards the man-made argument...

We believe what we make to be unnatural because in our modern society we have become detached from nature.  Just look at the way most people look at nature.  They always observe animals interactions between each other and the ecosystem, but always look at us as outsiders.  Maybe its human nature to view ourselves 'foreign' from the natural world, and that is why we are very different in many ways from animals...
Jan 19 2009 8:57PM
0 0
profile picture
ClownPrince
Posts: 500 - Karma: 10
What does this mean, though? Our "mass distances" could be microscopic to some race we haven't contacted yet, somewhere in the universe, with technology to travel much further than us in much less time. By this logic, the superlatives that put us ahead of other species here on Earth could be entirely insignificant in the bigger picture, meaning humans are really nothing special.

I guess I don't really have an answer to the original question. It all depends on your definition of "natural" which is hard to define. 


Jan 19 2009 8:58PM
0 0
profile picture
DirtyMick
Posts: 1496 - Karma: 21
I did, and this is an excerpt:

"An invasive species is an animal or plant that has been taken from its native habitat and introduced to another area."  Taken from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20041121/ai_n12762065

Taken from it's native habitat. That's not natural. At all.
Jan 19 2009 8:59PM
0 0
profile picture
DirtyMick
Posts: 1496 - Karma: 21
Bingo.
Jan 19 2009 9:03PM
0 0
profile picture
Ski311
Posts: 595 - Karma: 8
if one does an unatural 720 on accident is it natural?
Jan 19 2009 9:06PM
0 0
profile picture
skiP.E.I.
Posts: 7604 - Karma: 20,096
We had to answer this question in my 3D media class last semester. Every time I think about it I coem to a different conclusion. I think humans are part of nature, and we need our environment to be as healthy as possible for us to survive, so since humans are destroying the environment pretty thoroughly...well I guess it makes sense that if any species reaches a point where it can't sustain itself it will destroy itself....... but it really needs more thought than I can give to it right now.
Jan 19 2009 9:08PM
0 0
profile picture
StanMcStanson
Posts: 2772 - Karma: 1
Very eloquently put, and on point.
Jan 19 2009 9:13PM
0 0
profile picture
Ski311
Posts: 595 - Karma: 8

which is natural?

http://media.nscdn.com/uploads/member/videos/1232411064skiing_dt_off_rickys_camera_2_049.MPG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=putisSUCRIA

Jan 19 2009 9:22PM
0 0
profile picture
Mooserz
Posts: 2945 - Karma: 32
mass genocide? no, but they will kill in the name of territory
Jan 19 2009 9:36PM
0 0
profile picture
Ski..4..Life
Posts: 1347 - Karma: 97
so we are only superior because of our intellect and the ability to create inventions and make innovations to our environment because otherwise in a natural state without gadgets and gizmos i would agree that animals have evolved better than us.
In the long run animals will live longer upon this Earth because they have not developed that part of their brain that allows them to manipulate the environment to the extent that we have.
So in essence we have created our own downfall and we have no-one to blame for this but ourselves.

We have created this world what it is and continue to manipulate it because we are unable to adapt to it, while animals have the ability to adapt and evolve with a man-made society.
Wild Animals are the superior races, and this will eventually be proven as we send ourselves to extinction.

*Side Note* I Love arguing about this stuff, because it allows me and others to see the other side of life and their really is no right or wrong answer just what you believe is right.
Jan 19 2009 9:53PM
0 0
profile picture
Thenowhereman42
Posts: 5682 - Karma: 65
babylon and such
Jan 19 2009 10:08PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
wordd...I just figured a thoughtful subject would be nice in between all this hyphy shit that kids keep posting about.
Jan 19 2009 10:10PM
0 0
profile picture
doritos
Posts: 7368 - Karma: 53
Great ideas, man, I love this kinda shit.

I would say that we were destined as a species to get to the point we're at from day one. We are more advanced than animals because we have the ability to learn. Yeah, other animals can technically learn shit but it's generally based on and brought about by survival instincts. It is also nowhere near as complex and efficient as our learning processes.

That being said, I don't think we did it right. To clarify, I believe we were meant to get to this point but I don't think we did it correctly and I don't think we are going about things as we were meant to. Cannabis is illegal, and yeah, I know that seems trivial in the larger scheme of this thread but it's not... It was put on this earth for a reason, it expands minds and encourages the kind of thought that produced this thread. It encourages the questioning of authority, creativity, innovation, etc. We weren't meant to kill off millions of members of our own species due to physical differences. We weren't meant to destroy our own planet. To use a very nerdy reference, we are a larger Darth Vader. We became extremely powerful, as we were meant to, but we didn't go about it the right way.

That's all I got for now, I'll read through the responses and see if anything else comes to me later.
Jan 19 2009 10:18PM
0 0
profile picture
aurora.
Posts: 1169 - Karma: 104
I dont think you can say its human nature to detach ourselves from natural world unless you're only referring to western civilization only. I think we are taught to detach ourselves from nature. The scientific method and observation and any type of analysis can only begin once you take yourself out of the equation. If you extend this to our overall mindset then we live our lives by taking ourself out of the equation.

Other cultures dont take this approach and view themselves within the natural order of the world.

There are tribes in africa that build their towns and houses based on fractals because they beleive that it represents the natural order of things. I wish our society incorporated things like this into it. I dont really agree that a parking garage is as natural as an anthill, mainly because a parking garage doesnt fit in with the other patterns of nature like fractals which pop up everywhere or the golden ratio, phi. Things like this which give a common theme to everything we call "nature" arent really seen in man made things.

Or maybe they are?? someone should look at a satellite image of a major city and see if they can find fractals or phi or some unconcious pattern that proves that we arent defying nature.
Jan 19 2009 10:21PM
0 0
profile picture
hellomynameisjef
Posts: 5794 - Karma: 167
i agree. humans are part of nature, and we need our enviroment to survive and sustain a comftrable lifestyle. by destroying the enviroment, we are essentially destroying out source of life.
Jan 19 2009 10:21PM
0 0
profile picture
wnab21
Posts: 1313 - Karma: 18
well what do you think animals think of humans?
Jan 19 2009 10:23PM
0 0
profile picture
Ryno
Posts: 31125 - Karma: 336
Humans are natures virus...we can modify shit quick but will it kill us off in the process?
Jan 19 2009 10:25PM
0 0
profile picture
Yung_Gnarley
Posts: 9091 - Karma: 3,016
all living things are one in the same. it's just a matter of how fast we evolve and in what way. For instance, humans have evolved at an extremely fast rate since they came into existence. Humans evolve by advancing technology. Birds evolve by advancing the way in which their bodies perform in a given environment. that's what i say




Jan 19 2009 10:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Ski311
Posts: 595 - Karma: 8
I disagree with this since we can be wiped out by more things found in nature than any human has created/discovered. thats why our dumbasses are still looking/causing/creating.
Jan 19 2009 10:32PM
0 0
profile picture
leckett1
Posts: 6476 - Karma: 294
ah but one could argue that we are more advanced because we adapted our own ways to navigate, fly and so on. we used our own natural intellect to evolve our technology in these ways!
Jan 19 2009 10:49PM
0 0
profile picture
Ski..4..Life
Posts: 1347 - Karma: 97
yes well someone said that before and i already answered, read down a few more posts from that original post and you will get my answer
Jan 19 2009 11:04PM
0 0
profile picture
jedi.Jim
Posts: 1133 - Karma: 13
my threads

Jan 19 2009 11:22PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
ive definitely thought about this before. after a few hours and a headache i gave up. there isnt really an answer
Jan 19 2009 11:27PM
0 0
profile picture
Luckyscs
Posts: 518 - Karma: 11
We have stopped evolving as a species physically. On the other hand our culture and society is evolving.  Even though the construct of society has allowed us to become the dominant species and reproduce, it becomes more detached from our physical evolution. I do not believe mankind will continue for a long time on the path of evolution it is following. Many people will die before find a way to survive in balance with our bodies and nature. Genetic engineering will be the new era of our social evolution and this will be our chance to find balance within this world. Human progression is natural but natural does not mean it can be sustained.
Jan 19 2009 11:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Jay31
Posts: 796 - Karma: 11
Yea my post was very directed at western civilization (or any industrial civilization really, forgot to mention that).

Not to say that what we humans invent and such isn't natural, and I'm not saying it is, but what if we assumed that what we're inventing and such isn't natural because it is harming the environment in ways the environment wasn't 'naturally' set up to defend against.  Such as introducing a 'foreign' species into a new ecosystem isn't 'natural', so it hurts the environment.

To put a simple example- smoking isn't natural for our bodies, therefore harms us.

It could be said that the term 'natural' would be taken as what doesn't harm the environment it is in (not just referring to nature when saying environment).
Jan 20 2009 12:00AM
0 0
profile picture
Ski311
Posts: 595 - Karma: 8
I hope a meteor comes before I die from smoking or am killed by geneticly engineered beings, but hey, my life is good. GO WESTERN CIVILIZATION!
Jan 20 2009 12:13AM
0 0
profile picture
bailer
Posts: 2178 - Karma: 14
The thing that makes us different mainly is the ability to communicate with each other and therefore share lots of knowledge. Everything you do and know in your life is because of other people. Over time people learned to live together and then started working together to make society what it is.
Jan 20 2009 12:16AM
0 0
profile picture
Ski311
Posts: 595 - Karma: 8
I don't ski because of other people, it was only introduced to me by them.
Jan 20 2009 12:25AM
0 0
profile picture
skieasy
Posts: 214 - Karma: 11

are we striving to find out why we are different though? or are we just accepting that we are and striving to figure out how build bigger and better anthills or whathaveyou.

Jan 20 2009 12:59AM
0 0
profile picture
Ski311
Posts: 595 - Karma: 8
sounds expensive
Jan 20 2009 1:17AM
0 0
profile picture
Danger.
Posts: 3476 - Karma: 58
Our thought development is natural, but a parking structure isn't because of the materials. The plans used to create it are, but how it is constructed isn't.
Jan 20 2009 1:26AM
0 0
profile picture
Ski311
Posts: 595 - Karma: 8

we arnt parking in your noggin

Jan 20 2009 1:35AM
0 0
profile picture
Casey
Posts: 7785 - Karma: 23,466

Its true. The idea of a parking garage really isn't sustainable. We are natural, but in the way that a locust hive is natural. It consumes relentlessly until the resources are gone, and then the herd is killed off to a level that the food supply can sustain the population. We humans are no different than say, a deer herd or a wolf pack in that sense. It may make sense as to why there is poverty in this world. We are above our natural carrying capacity as a species. Like, way above it. Yet, we have big brains, so we figured out that if some of us devote our energy solely to making a shit load of food, then we can all eat, if we can pay to buy food. In a more basic time, we would all grow our own food and hunt. The problem is, that all the land is owned, not enough of it is agricultural, and all the game is dead and has been replaced by human development. So we can't go back to our basic ways of hunting and agriculture to fend for ourselves. This makes us dependent on the system in a way that keeps us from being able to exit our roles as say "US citizen." independence from laws, jurisdictions, and taxes is no longer possible.

But back to the ant hill bit, Lets say ants were as big as us, and instead of pine needles and twigs they used mountains and trees to build their hills. I mean its not so far off as to what we do is it?

I think that we will continue to suffer massive population growth and inevitable decline until we find a balance. I mean I guess you could say that, nature doesn't really care what we do, we can follow the rules or not follow them, it will only benefit or harm ourselves as a species in the end.

Jan 20 2009 1:52AM
0 0
profile picture
GreekAR6
Posts: 527 - Karma: 11
This is a good thread, I really enjoyed reading it, I'm really liking how everyone is actually thinking and talking rather than insulting each other in typical NS fashion.

As for my view I think yeah, technically everything is natural.  But saying that animals are better than us?  I find that slightly absurd.  I believe that what sets us apart from animals is things like art.  Animals do not make art, true birds sing songs etc, but animals do not make art for arts sake.  Sure it may sound corny but that's what I think.  In response to the thing about communication being flawed, I believe you're right to an extent, language is indeed a human construct.  It's true we all have different opinions and feelings and attribute different meanings to words, but it's good enough that we can talk about this isn't it?  How many ants do you think question their existence and whether their home is natural or not?  Democracy works (yes it's true!) which is just a testament to human interaction. 

And my answer for the parking lot question.  Thought it's technically natural I wouldn't call it that because well, it's not instinct.  Ants instinctively build hills.  Humans don't instinctively build parking garages, they're the result of the accumulated knowledge of thousands of generations.  If we all died except for some primitive group of people, they sure as hell wouldn't be building parking garages.  If you kill all but a primitive group of ants, you can bet they'd make a hill.  Ant hills are cross species (i'd assume)  parking garages are not. 

That's my two cents.
Jan 20 2009 2:00AM
0 0
profile picture
Ski311
Posts: 595 - Karma: 8
^ its not what I want to do. Id rather be a dr, but what if you live on a sailboat in international waters? as long as you can sustain food, water, and keep your boat from sinking, by your theory you are set, correct?
Jan 20 2009 2:07AM
0 0
profile picture
aurora.
Posts: 1169 - Karma: 104
thats a really interesting point.

but do humans make art for arts sake even? Is it different from a bird singing because there is no obvious functionality? For me art has a purpose, whether its exploring ideas or having some emotional investment so in that way its functional. Art also communicates just like a birds song. Its kind of interesting that within the context of this thread, a lot of people view nature as artistic. Perhaps art is one of the strongest connections that humankind still has to nature.
Jan 20 2009 2:17AM
0 0
profile picture
freezed
Posts: 12973 - Karma: 500
read "I Am A Strange Loop" by Douglas Hofsteader, a good, non-pretentious look at why human consciousness exists and what consciousness in general is.
Jan 20 2009 2:18AM
0 0
profile picture
Ski311
Posts: 595 - Karma: 8
i plan to smash your next sandcastle in the name of art. what what?
Jan 20 2009 2:23AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)