Is mankind part of nature? How can part of nature do something unnatural?

Question

I'm confused. I hear environmentalists whine about the "unnatural" things that man is doing to the earth.

Huh?

Seems to me man, (both male & female, mankind), is Part of nature. By definition, whatever man does is "natural", being part of nature.


Thoughts?

So, am I hearing semantics? Misusing of the word "natural"?

Answer 1

Star question..... absolutely agree with you. But then perhaps for us to think that we are going against the Nature which would damage or spoil it may also be equally natural..... that leaves no question to ask or answer... everything that happens is natural!!!

Answer 2

Environmentalists put forth their views based on idealism- something they think has to be like this and that to maintain world free of pollution, deforestation, greenhouse effect, etc. Being unnatural means ruining the balance of nature.

It also depends on the population who is ruining the ecosystem. For instance, if a large population is cutting down trees, that will be certainly called "unnatural" by the environmentalists but a small population causing pollution will be quite insignificant and will be called "need for survival".

Answer 3

The implication of "Natural" is nearly impossible to define, yet it indicates that there is an order that is higher than any one being or species. The implication for doing things that are "unnatural," is an attempt to state that the current actions of mankind are infringing on or being contradictory to the higher order of things.
Using this definition, mankind does do many things that could be seen to indicate "unnatural" activities upon (at least in our common sensical-yet obviously imperfect understanding of) the "natural order of things."
The difficulty is that no one person can comprehend all of the "natural" laws that govern us, so we can in no way fully follow the course of the enigma of "nature." There are, however, some things that might be seen as being unnatural (e.g. biting the hand that feeds you; hurting those that you love). Since it is easier, therefore, to define what is natural by what it is not, many follow that path; the difficulty there, however, is that somethings that appear to be wrong, are in fact very natural (e.g. a lion eating that cuddly littlezebra baby). What is "natural," therfore, become muddled by the interpretation of what the individual would like to be the higher order of natural tendencies.
When the environmentalists say that we are doing "unnatural things" to the earth, they have a even farther reaching point: nature is supposed to be a self-sustaining cycle (as far as we have seen in our limited history). Using this point, environmentalists are "whining" because they see a limit to the sustainability of what man is enacting on the planet. To completely discount what they say is to deny limits to a finite resource. To completely be "green," is to deny the progress of man, and intend to return to the Hunter/Gatherer way of life.
Like any other group of activists, environmentalists are trying to fix the world in which they find themselves. It is laudable to fight for what you believe, I guess that's just NATURAL.

Answer 4

There is a paradox in what you say. The paradox is explained by whichever understanding you have of the word "nature".

I am a humanist and believe that human beings in their natural (sic) state (without the metaphysical constructs of religion spiritualism and so forth) are as much part of nature as any micro organism, plant or animal.

Some of the above have caused tremendous damage to environments, even to the extent of their own extermination, but mankind, natural though we may be. have it within our capacity to destroy ourselves and perhaps the World consciously.

That possibly makes humankind an almost different, supernatural force in destruction.

I believe that such a view is conceited. If (and probably when) we destroy the World it will be a natural occurrence. Some alien visitor in the future, seeing our pitiful remains would probably think so.

Answer 5

Hmmm this could be a tricky answer. I do think of human beings are egocentric and merciless by employing nature. i'm many times an incredible guy or woman yet I capture myself being recommend guffawing at different ladies, gossiping, it only happens. additionally once you look at somebody you come to a decision if there unattractive or alluring suitable? you do no longer ought to declare if there gruesome out loud yet maximum folk could whisper it in there friends ear, so i think of human beings are merciless amf can not help it. Beacause whether you do no longer say some thing impolite out loud your nevertheless thinking it and that keeps to be recommend. only like in the experience that your pal gets the guy you like or gets say soemthig like an iPhone or if one in each and every of your coworkers get the advertising you have needed you experience jealous. you won't be able to help it fairly. Its only organic. And concerning to the animal situation, animals are egocentric too. in specific situations i'm a %. the Alfa will attempt to eat the whole animal that has been caught. isn't that gluttony and selfishness? however the animal would not think of that. Its an animal you won't be able to assume it too. So animals are egocentric devoid of which skill it. Or what if a lion or different animal is going and steals say a cheetah cub. it somewhat is only merciless. So animals and human beings are egocentric, gluttons, merciless and a number of of of the time do no longer recommend it.

Answer 6

Interesting! But also syntactical. I would say the environmentalists do have a point.

Answer 7

I'm not so sure that you are the one who is confused here.

Love and blessings Don

Answer 8

those environmentalist should first explain what "natural" is

Answer 9

Awh, another Abstract question...