SOmething I have been tossing about in my head is what makes something natural? THis all came up durning an envronmental studies class in which a classmate was presenting a paper on the effects of beavors on a habitat. You see, a beavor builds a dam changing the structure of the waterflow from a fastmoving stream to a pond, which ios the habititat it needs to live, and while this creats habitat for beavors and some other animals it also destroys the fast moving water nessary for others to survive. So i got to thinking why have i never questioned beavor behavior in the past? well because of course beavor dams are good for the environment as beavors are natural, but wait aren't we natural? If a beavor is only using his adaptations to create habitat he needs to survive comfortably and that is natural how can we do anything that is not natural because we are creates of nature and our adapations are language and the use of tools? It is atleast something to think about, it's a little silly, and certainly not enough to keep me from recycling. but, what is it exactly that makes us think we are devided from nature when it is in fact impossible?
What is Natural?
By oleirer - Posted on May 17th, 2006
Good question. Maybe no one has the answer though. In my opinion, it's the need for humans to seperate ourselves from nature. I'm not sure why this occured. It has a lot to do with your views on religion and what you believe happens after death, or so I've seen. Another thing that might be the problem is a human's belief that he or she is superior to nature. "I can think and reason, I don't see anything else reasoning, so therefore I am superior" seems to be a highly common mindset. Ridiculous? Yes, to some. But people do actually believe that. I personally do not, but still, some people do.
Good thoughts here, oleirer.
Yes, people do what they need to survive, and usually try to harm others and their environment as little as possible*. This really should eliminate the need for a question like, 'are humans bad and evil for changing the world around them to fit their needs?'
The only remaining question then, is of whose needs are of more importance. Since I choose, my needs do.
If you can't tell, RhyanonSorenson is disagreeing with this idea. She rightfully acknolwedges that it is in our nature to think and reason, but disparages the notion that that fact makes our needs any better than creatures who can't have any concept of rights, need, or justice. I'd refer her to ErgoSum's blog post regarding this.
Finally, I disagree with her pejorative use of the word 'superior' as if our needs are borne from something deep-seated, hubristic, and incorrect. It is more accurate to simply say that, when confronted with a choice between acting to benefit animals at the cost of humans, or the other way round, the human interest is probably more important. Whether that makes anything superior is irrelevant, unless you're trying to criminalize someone.
Michael Allen Yarbrough
*except in the case of commons, which are regularly abused. But common property does not exist in the nature of humans, which is reason, which is to say that the existence of commons is illogical and unreasonable, and contrary to our nature. Here is the wiki entry defining what they are, but it doesn't give examples and implications. Commons are roadsides, public parks and fishing areas, etc. I can explain more if necessary.
EDIT: haha, she's already read and posted there. Maybe I'll try to offer a convincing argument there, too.
I never said that the idea that human needs are incorrect. I only mean that they are just as valid as any other needs of any other creature. Further, I only stated that the idea existed that the needs are "superior".