Nomos vs. Physis

[Adahn]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]The classic debate of law vs. nature has recently sparked my interest.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]For argument's sake, I will take the side of nature.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]We, as a race, go against everything that is natural.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]1. We insist that the weak be put on the same level as the strong, and sometimes place them above us.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]2. We insist that we not center the universe around our own persons, when every other creature does what is best for the individual.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]3. We set our own pleasures and desires aside in favor of the good of others.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Every law we have comes from custom, and goes completely against nature. It is for this reason that we harm the world in the ways we do. If we were to succumb to what is natural, the world would put itself back in order, and what is natural would be restored to its rightful place.[/color][/size][/font]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Are we not products of nature, Adahn? Who draws the distinction between "natural" and "not natural" here? We are not without the natural world; we are within it. Our actions are largely detrimental to some ecosystems just like the introduction of any species to ecosystems (which are unaccustomed to that species) is. If feral pigs in the absense of natural predators completely destroy a large portion of the vegetation on an island, are feral pigs an unnatural creature?

I will now proceed to kill your points, one by one.

1. It can be inferred that you see putting weak on the same level as the strong as "against everything that is natural." First of all, what do you even mean by the idea of "putting the weak on the same level as the strong?" If you happen to say that we go against the idea of "survival of the fittest," then you are misguided. For one, animals will very frequently protect their weak (i.e. young, old) from predators, individually or as a group. Secondly, humans clearly have different criteria for judging who is indeed the "fittest" among them. We do not live in the same fashion as other animals, so [i]naturally[/i] the same criteria as for other animals do not apply. That is not to say that "the strong" do not outlive "the weak," whoever these strong may be.

2. It is not true that "every creature does what is best for the individual" in the sense that you are describing. Animals often protect each other. And don't even get me started on social insects such as bees and ants. There is no such thing as "the individual" as far as they're concerned. In addition, you could make the argument that humans almost exclusively do what is best for the individual, be it directly or indirectly.

3. This is basically a reiteration of point #2. And as I mentioned, it is in no way "unnatural" because animals do the same thing all the time.

Adahn, be very careful making generalizations about Earth's living creatures. There are very few that will stand up to scrutiny. Indeed, I am not sure at all what the basis for your argument is. You will need to make (and defend!) clear distinctions between what [i]is[/i] and what is [i]not[/i] "natural" in your view.

[Ben]

[QUOTE=Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]The classic debate of law vs. nature has recently sparked my interest.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]For argument's sake, I will take the side of nature.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]We, as a race, go against everything that is natural.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]1. We insist that the weak be put on the same level as the strong, and sometimes place them above us.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]2. We insist that we not center the universe around our own persons, when every other creature does what is best for the individual.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]3. We set our own pleasures and desires aside in favor of the good of others.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Every law we have comes from custom, and goes completely against nature. It is for this reason that we harm the world in the ways we do. If we were to succumb to what is natural, the world would put itself back in order, and what is natural would be restored to its rightful place.[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE]

We place the weak at the same level or above us because many of us have set codes of [B]morality[/B]. People believe it is not [I]right[/I] to merely trample the weak underfoot. We are cognitive beings, and this is a decision we have made.

As for "every other creature" doing what is best for the individual, what about insects? Ants, bees, and termites all operate as colonies. The individual is so incredibly unimportant in those systems.

Wolves operate as a pack. They cooperate for the betterment of the [B]whole pack[/B], not just themselves. They hunt together to acquire food. They sleep together to warm each other. They work together to prepare dens for the young.

Deer and other herd animals, they tend to remain in groups -- [B]herds.[/B] They do this out of a sense of self-preservation. They do this to protect their young. Fifteen deer stand a much better chance against a small pack of wolves than one deer does.

Also, [I]schools[/I] of fish. In schools of fish, the fish remain so close to one another that they sometimes appear to be one creature. If a smaller predator comes along, it will be less apt to attack a whole school of fish than a single one.

Cooperation in nature. There you have it.

[quote name='Adahn']Every law we have comes from custom, and goes completely against nature.[/quote]

Now, isn't the first rule of nature survival? If there were no rules, then anybody could just kill anybody else. The strong (of body [I]or[/I] mind) could massacre the weak as they chose. We form societies and establish customs to protect ourselves [I]from[/I] ourselves.

[quote name='Adahn']If we were to succumb to what is natural, the world would put itself back in order, and what is natural would be restored to its rightful place.[/quote]

If we were to succumb to what is natural, I'm sure somebody would find and kill you. :p

Anyways, if we were to succumb to what is natural, I think we [I]may[/I] go back to chaos and do whatever the heck we please. But eventually, order would reemerge. As I said above, the reason for order and custom is self-preservation, which is natural; our prime instinct.

[Lady_Rin]

Adahn, please PM me and tell me about yourself.

[quote= from "The Quick and Alive Tourist Guide to the Desert" By D. Ranger]

"Nature doesn't care about you. The animals don't care about you. All the animals want is to do is be like the surfers at the beach. Have somethng to eat, catch a few rays, get some sleep and chase the ladies."[/quote]

Here we go again trying to quantify the unquantifiable. How close do you live to nature? Is it in your backyard? Do you see it everyday. It is here, it comes into my house. right now it's trantaula season and they are everywhere, including my kitchen.

We could live in harmony with the Earth Spirits; without and any of the comforts of cvilization, the internet or hot water. Or you can do as we do here; adapt to nature and do your best to live within the ecology, that's possible too. That's the way we try to live here. I like my intenet and I love hot water.

There is no classic argument of Law vs Nature. It's like a relationship, it is or it isn't. [IMG]http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/desertranger/lol.gif[/IMG]

Your argument has no grounds. Try again.

Ben.. You get 10 pioints and a hug and kiss.

[Adahn]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]This is not so easy, but I will do what I can. In the case of the hive mind, every individual has a purpose. Every single bee or ant is useful. They are all a family. The same goes for the pack animals. They will take care of the young and old because they are useful members of the pack. However, when a member of the pack is wounded, or incapacitated in any way, it is abandoned. They take care of their young because of instinct. They are programmed to do so, because their species would die off if they didn't.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Any creature that works together in this way does so because it is in a family unit. Our society is not based on this. We have taken into ourselves all manners of people, and the individual's function in society is lessened.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If you want my opinion on what is natural for humans, I would point you in the direction of native tribes. You may call them undeveloped people, but I would say that we are overdeveloped. People were not meant to exist like we do. It is we who exist in the chaotic environment.[/color][/size][/font]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Adahn']This is not so easy, but I will do what I can. In the case of the hive mind, every individual has a purpose. Every single bee or ant is useful. They are all a family.[/quote]
Ben is entirely right. I would hardly classify a bee's societal structure as "individual-oriented" or even as a "family." The bees are called "worker [i]drones[/i]" for a reason. There's a reason bees search for honey, and then report back to the hive, to let all the other bees know where to find the honey, so it can benefit the [i]hive[/i], [i]not[/i] the individual bee.

The "individual" bee has one purpose and one alone: to serve the hive. The bee is an automaton; it exists only to serve the hive. There is no love; there is no family; there is no individual; there is only the hive.

Your point is as clumsy as it is stupid. (Who's going to get the reference?)

[QUOTE]The same goes for the pack animals. They will take care of the young and old because they are useful members of the pack. However, when a member of the pack is wounded, or incapacitated in any way, it is abandoned. They take care of their young because of instinct. They are programmed to do so, because their species would die off if they didn't.[/QUOTE]
The pack animal acts because it is forced to; humans act because they care.

I don't see how this makes Nature better than Civilization. If anything, this is a major blow to the "Nature is better" argument. You're essentially saying that pack animals help because they need to; otherwise, they would die out. Humans are quite the opposite: humans help because they [i]want[/i] to.


[QUOTE]Any creature that works together in this way does so because it is in a family unit. Our society is not based on this. We have taken into ourselves all manners of people, and the individual's function in society is lessened.[/QUOTE]
There's a distinction that needs to be made between "pack" and "family unit."

What you're describing for Nature is Dog-Eat-Dog. That's a far cry from what human family units--and the family unit in general--are.

I'm getting that you're trying to say that human family units don't help each other when each other needs help? I guess my entire extended family on my Mom's side helping my Aunt Sue when my Uncle Wayne had a [i]quadruple bypass[/i] last year isn't an example of human families helping each other in times of need?

I suppose my entire Mom's side helping to fix up my Aunt Denise and Uncle Mike's house over an entire weekend isn't an example of family helping each other in times of need?

Or what about helping my cousin, Stacey, move into her new house with her husband, Reggie, and their 1-year-old daughter, Chloe?

Come on, lol. Your argument is totally asinine.


[quote]If you want my opinion on what is natural for humans, I would point you in the direction of native tribes. You may call them undeveloped people, but I would say that we are overdeveloped. People were not meant to exist like we do. It is we who exist in the chaotic environment.[/QUOTE]
What is this "meant to exist" crap? Humans have opposable thumbs. They have more highly-developed brains. They have higher levels of cognition. They have a creative consciousness. Why in the hell are humans [i]not[/i] supposed to utilize those skills?

I've always found elevator rides to be pretty damn smooth, too, so...where's the chaos there? I can always get a Weather report, any time of the day, so...where's the chaos there? Offices and retail outlets get busy as hell, yes, but that's just a business rush; it's not "chaos" in the way you're trying to use the term.

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Being resourceful enough to have the time to work for more than basic survival, we've overcome the other species on this planet.

Just because we are not in tune with the Brownie definition of "nature" does not mean we're an evil pack of barbarous, nothing-but-destructive, macro-gluttons.

Animals are killing the coral reefs and each other, poisoning our rivers with their excretion and causing them to flood.
Animals have no sense of morality--they steal, rape, and eat their babies.

Despite the fact that some humans act like animals, most of us are pretty damn okay by [i]homo sapien sapien[/i] standards.

Saying that it's somehow wrong for us to have developed as far as we have is saying that it is wrong for us to have learned to surpass creatures that are naturally stronger, claws-and-teeth-wise than we are, for our own survival, which basically negates your argument.

Mother Nature played a cruel joke on us when she made us feeble-bodied and hairless. I like to think she got what was coming to her. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Godelsensei']Saying that it's somehow wrong for us to have developed as far as we have is saying that it is wrong for us to have learned to surpass creatures that are naturally stronger, claws-and-teeth-wise than we are, for our own survival, which basically negates your argument.[/quote]
Excellent point, Godel. It definitely deserves consideration.

What you just described is precisely what the Animal Kingdom is: Dog-Eat-Dog, Darwinian Conventions...Survival of the fittest. If anything, we've just simply utilized what has been utilized by animal and pre-human alike throughout the history of the world:

The better, smarter and stronger survive.

[Ben]

[quote name='Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]This is not so easy, but I will do what I can. In the case of the hive mind, every individual has a purpose. Every single bee or ant is useful. They are all a family. The same goes for the pack animals. They will take care of the young and old because they are useful members of the pack. However, when a member of the pack is wounded, or incapacitated in any way, it is abandoned. They take care of their young because of instinct. They are programmed to do so, because their species would die off if they didn't.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]

Even if I agreed that that was true, how does it in any way address what I presented? O_o;;

You claimed that "every other creature does what is best for the individual" and I disproved it with my examples. You present information that claims that a "family" unit will discard individuals when one becomes wounded or incapacitated. [B]They're still not doing what's best for the individual, they're doing what's best for the pack/herd.[/B]

I'm still waiting for an adequate response.

[quote name='Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Any creature that works together in this way does so because it is in a family unit. Our society is not based on this. We have taken into ourselves all manners of people, and the individual's function in society is lessened.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]

I think Alex made his point nauseatingly clear with his extended family examples.

[quote name='Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If you want my opinion on what is natural for humans, I would point you in the direction of native tribes. You may call them undeveloped people, but I would say that we are overdeveloped. People were not meant to exist like we do. It is we who exist in the chaotic environment.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]

Okay. You're telling us to take a look at native tribes.

In Sociology, there are six basic types of societies: Hunting and Food-Gathering; Agricultural; Pastoral; Horticultural; Industrial; and Postindustrial.

"Natives" as you loosely use the term, I would categorize under one or more of the first four types.

Hunting and Food-Gathering; this sort of [B]society[/B] is pretty much self-explanatory. [B]The members of the society work together[/B] to kill animals for food, clothing, and tools, to name a few things. They forage forage for fruits and vegetables.

[B]Pastoral Societies rely on herding, domesticating, and propogating animals for food and clothing to satisfy the bulk of the [U]group's[/U] needs.[/B]

[B]Horticultural societies[/B] were the first [B]societies[/B] to use human muscle power and hand-held tools to cultivate gardens and fields. These would be natives that are settled, and grow crops for food.

Now, regardless of which category they fit under, they are a tribe. They have their own [B]society,[/B] and [B]society[/B] by its very nature is a [B]grouping[/B] of individuals cooperating to promote that [B]society[/B]. Cooperation is a [B]necessity,[/B] [I]especially[/I] in the "native tribes" you gave as an example.

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Another point to do with humans, indeed, living in groups, is the very idea of morality.

The concepts of it being wrong to murder, steal, rape, etc... are elements that make it much easier to uphold a functional society.

Humans are not inherent Anarchists. All over the world, every society had established a form of leadership, before cultures came together.

How can we follow leaders without living together, in groups?[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Adahn]

[quote name='Siren]Ben is entirely right. I would hardly classify a bee's societal structure as "individual-oriented" or even as a "family." The bees are called "worker [i]drones[/i]" for a reason. There's a reason bees search for honey, and then report back to the hive, to let all the other bees know where to find the honey, so it can benefit the [i]hive[/i], [i]not[/i'] the individual bee.[/quote][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I will agree that the individual oriented thing was a bad idea. However, the individual and the hive are interdependent. The bee cannot exist without the hive, and the hive (obviously) cannot exist without those drones.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
The "individual" bee has one purpose and one alone: to serve the hive. The bee is an automaton; it exists only to serve the hive. There is no love; there is no family; there is no individual; there is only the hive.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The hive has one purpose and one alone: to serve the bee. Yes, you can kill one bee, and the hive will survive. However, if there are no individuals, there is no hive. Not everyone in our society has a purpose. In fact, there are separate groups that fight and kill each other, though they belong to the same country. You will never see that in a hive, or in a pack. You can't lump so many conflicting groups together; it's unnatural.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
The pack animal acts because it is forced to; humans act because they care.

I don't see how this makes Nature better than Civilization. If anything, this is a major blow to the "Nature is better" argument. You're essentially saying that pack animals help because they need to; otherwise, they would die out. Humans are quite the opposite: humans help because they [i]want[/i] to.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Desire and need are closely related. If one develops a close relationship to another person, and that person is in trouble, there is a [i]need[/i] to help that person. The desire can be confused with doing what is right, but it is really a matter of needing to keep your family together.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
There's a distinction that needs to be made between "pack" and "family unit."

What you're describing for Nature is Dog-Eat-Dog. That's a far cry from what human family units--and the family unit in general--are.

I'm getting that you're trying to say that human family units don't help each other when each other needs help? I guess my entire extended family on my Mom's side helping my Aunt Sue when my Uncle Wayne had a [i]quadruple bypass[/i] last year isn't an example of human families helping each other in times of need?

I suppose my entire Mom's side helping to fix up my Aunt Denise and Uncle Mike's house over an entire weekend isn't an example of family helping each other in times of need?

Or what about helping my cousin, Stacey, move into her new house with her husband, Reggie, and their 1-year-old daughter, Chloe?[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]You care for those you love because you need to. It does make you feel better, because you know you are doing your part to help someone who is important to you. Blood separation matters little, because one can develop family-like relationships with friends.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
What is this "meant to exist" crap? Humans have opposable thumbs. They have more highly-developed brains. They have higher levels of cognition. They have a creative consciousness. Why in the hell are humans [i]not[/i] supposed to utilize those skills?[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]We don't utilize those skills. We make use of what our predecessors left us. It is our ability to build on the past that makes us 'better' than animals. In this way, we are a terrible force.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
I've always found elevator rides to be pretty damn smooth, too, so...where's the chaos there? I can always get a Weather report, any time of the day, so...where's the chaos there? Offices and retail outlets get busy as hell, yes, but that's just a business rush; it's not "chaos" in the way you're trying to use the term.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The 'chaos' is the excessive amount of rivalry in the larger society. How can those who live in the same country be patriotic, when most countries are split right down the middle in terms of what is right and what is wrong? We have grown too large. Not only must we live with our enemies, we aren't even allowed to fight them. When you aren't allowed to fight your enemies, you know something is wrong. This is very much against nature.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]EDIT: Ick, too many posts happened in the middle of mine. I apologize for not getting to all of you.[/color][/size][/font]

[Ben]

Just a quick little snippet before I head off to bed.

[quote name='Adahn']Desire and need are closely related.[/quote]

Adahn, I [I]desire[/I] entertainment, so I watch TV. I [B]desire[/B] refreshment, so I grab a soda. I do not [B]need[/B] entertainment. I do not [B]need[/B] concentrated sugar in a can.

Now, will you argue this by saying soda is not concentrated sugar in a can, or are you going to say something relevent?

[Godelsensei]

[quote name='Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The 'chaos' is the excessive amount of rivalry in the larger society. How can those who live in the same country be patriotic, when most countries are split right down the middle in terms of what is right and what is wrong? We have grown too large. Not only must we live with our enemies, we aren't even allowed to fight them. When you aren't allowed to fight your enemies, you know something is wrong. This is very much against nature.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]
[COLOR=Gray]
[FONT=Courier New]Like I've already stated, upholding our human values enables us to maintain a structured, productive, advanced society.

Animals are not capable of this, and thus, they must remain content to live in holes in the ground, feeding of squirrels and nuts.

Maintaining civilization allows us to prosper and kick general ***, in a Darwinian sense, and is therefor perfectly natural.

Notice that none of this involves eating our babies? Animals do that all the time, and it makes no sense, as far as prolonging the species goes.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=Ben]Just a quick little snippet before I head off to bed.



Adahn, I [i]desire[/i] entertainment, so I watch TV. I [b]desire[/b] refreshment, so I grab a soda. I do not [b]need[/b] entertainment. I do not [b]need[/b] concentrated sugar in a can.

Now, will you argue this by saying soda is not concentrated sugar in a can, or are you going to say something relevent?[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Not all needs deal with life and death. Desire is a human thing. As we become comfortable, we desire more to perpetuate our comfortability. Desire is merely a shifting need. If you are deprived of t.v., you will desire it for a while. You will feel uncomfortable not being entertained. However, if deprived of entertainment for too long, you will no longer desire it. The need will go away, because you will have accustomed yourself to a lower standard of comfortability. Go ahead, don't drink the soda, don't watch t.v. You'll just make yourself unhappy until you get used to not having soda and t.v. If we hadn't 'evolved' a 'need' to be entertained, we wouldn't be surrounded by so many forms of it.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]EDIT: Maintaining a civilization in which many, many groups and individuals are dissatisfied is a sign that the society has attempted to control a larger group of people than it contain.[/color][/size][/font]

[Lady_Rin]

Ben I'm going to kiss you.

Man lives in an extremely organised enivornment of his own making. Nature abounds in chaos

Let's try this. Adahn, please be a dear stand over there and put this apple on your head.

Now [URL=http://home.earthlink.net/~frogstar/50calrifle.html] [color=deeppink][/color][/URL]

If this event had been ruled by chaos that shot would have gone through your heart instead of through the apple.

That shot was predictable.

Ranger if you would please.

*Standing 25 yards from the target Ranger fast draws his Lama Omni automatic pistol and fires three fast shots*

Look at the target. All three shots dead center and overlapping by at least 30%.

Adahn, now it's your turn.

*Adahn takes the Lama and also fires three fast shots*.

Now look at the target. All three rounds are in the seven ring, that's OK, takes practice with an unfamiliar gun, but look! All three shots are overlapping by the same amont as before.

That's predicatability, the Lama always shoots that way no matter who holds it. It is the design of the Lama that makes it so, not the person shooting it. Three fast shots from a Lama Omni will always overlap, even in the hands of a novice.

Where's the chaos in that?

I'm going to bed. Goodnight *cheerfully*

[Adahn]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]You are right, chaos is not something I should attribute to human society.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Nature, however, is not chaotic. Nature is balance. If you leave something alone long enough, nature will perfect it. Just look at the relationships between organisms and their ecosystems. Everything works in perfect harmony. Even when struck with natural disaster, the environment will gradually reconstruct itself and achieve harmony once again.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Man attempts to control his environment, and nature is always well beyond us. We can do our best to imitate a small ecosystem, but most of what we try to create still requires human intervention to survive.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Whenever man attempts to control nature, the result is simple and decisive. Nature wins. We may do very little damage in terms of the planet as a biosphere, but we're getting there. It takes more than a couple thousand years to undo a few billion years of nature. When nature can no longer support our selfish desires (an unnatural, human thing), we will be destroyed. It may take another 1,000 years of attempting to bend nature to our will, or it may take 100 years. Nature survived whatever killed the dinosaurs, and it will survive us.[/color][/size][/font]

[Godelsensei]

[quote name='Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]It takes more than a couple thousand years to undo a few billion years of nature.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]
[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]
I'm sure the oceans and rainforests beg to differ.

Nature is a balance, but it's still chaotic. The ground splitting and volcanoes erupting and grizzly bears tearing helpless weaker creatures to pieces is most certainly chaotic.

And human civilization is most certainly a balance. That's why we have Demographic Branches and Urban Planners.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Adahn']We may do very little damage in terms of the planet as a biosphere, but we're getting there.[/quote]
Oh, we're there right now. The world has more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth, to blanket the sky with a nuclear winter, to kill off just about every single form of life on the planet.

And yet, that's not happening, now is it? I'd say that's a pretty big sign of humans respecting the natural world, Adahn. After all, we haven't gone and reduced the world to an apple core, even though we're quite able to, if we put our minds to it.

[i]Come on[/i], lol. Don't start another Christianity thread.

[James]

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Another point to do with humans, indeed, living in groups, is the very idea of morality.

The concepts of it being wrong to murder, steal, rape, etc... are elements that make it much easier to uphold a functional society.

[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]I think that's a good point. And it illustrates that we are not so different from other species.

We are more advanced and we call these things "morals". However, I think that these codes of conduct exist not simply because we want to be nice and do the right thing...but because our survival largely depends on such a code. Our society wouldn't function without the appropriate rules -- whether those rules are legal or moral/cultural is irrelevant, I think. The fact is, they exist so that our society will function.

And that's why you see totally different moral/cultural codes in different countries, in different groups of human beings. Every society has a totally different heirarchy and "moral code". To me, it suggests that the specific morals themselves aren't the focus, but that the reason for them to exist is the focus (ie: a stable and functioning group of human beings).

Other species have the exact same type of system, in the sense that they have rules that govern their societies, whether simple or complex. But I suppose the key difference is that within one species, the rules might all be the same, as they are derived from instinct.

Whereas with humans, we have multiple variations and interpretations on the rules, because of our increased complexity. Perhaps that can sometimes be more of a weakness than a strength. Maybe it's another point for debate. ~_^

I think it's worth reminding everyone to be civil, again. Adahn (as far as I can see) hasn't been going out and attacking anyone or anything, he is just presenting a view. Please be respectful enough to talk about the topic and not to get involved in personal statements.

So far the thread has been a very interesting read -- this is the type of thread that is really suitable for Otaku Lounge. My hope is that it can continue on its current course, without any needless aggrivation.[/color]

[Adahn]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#808080][QUOTE=Goldensensei][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#808080]I'm sure the oceans and rainforests beg to differ.[/QUOTE][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#808080][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]It is true that we have done much to harm the environment, but we have not yet reached the point of no return.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][color=#808080]
[font=Courier New][size=2][QUOTE=Goldensensei][/size][/font]
[size=2]Nature is a balance, but it's still chaotic. The ground splitting and volcanoes erupting and grizzly bears tearing helpless weaker creatures to pieces is most certainly chaotic.[/QUOTE][/size]
[size=2][font=Courier New][color=#0000ff]These things are not chaotic, they are merely violent and brutal from the human perspective. Earthquakes and volcanoes form mountains and islands, setting up the framework for new, unique ecosystems. Grizzly bears usually only tear creatures bo pieces when hungry or in a bad mood. These things may be unpredictable, but they are far from disorderly.[/color][/font]


[/size][/color][/font][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#808080][QUOTE=Goldensensei]
And human civilization is most certainly a balance. That's why we have Demographic Branches and Urban Planners.[/QUOTE][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#808080][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]What could be more disorderly and unpredictable as humanity? We attempt to create a balance, but nature does a much better job than we do. We can't fix one problem without creating several new ones; nature can.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][QUOTE=Siren][/color][/size][/font]
Oh, we're there right now. The world has more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth, to blanket the sky with a nuclear winter, to kill off just about every single form of life on the planet.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Yes, we do have the capability to destroy the ourselves quickly and efficiently. However, you would be hard-pressed to kill every single creature (namely cockroaches), and irreparably harm the earth.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][QUOTE=Siren][/color][/size][/font]
And yet, that's not happening, now is it? I'd say that's a pretty big sign of humans respecting the natural world, Adahn. After all, we haven't gone and reduced the world to an apple core, even though we're quite able to, if we put our minds to it.
[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The only reason we don't annihilate our enemies is because of fear of retaliation. There is no respect. We are not reducing the earth to an apple core, no, but we are slowly peeling away the many measures nature has taken to preserve life.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=James]
[size=2][color=#707875]Other species have the exact same type of system, in the sense that they have rules that govern their societies, whether simple or complex. But I suppose the key difference is that within one species, the rules might all be the same, as they are derived from instinct.

Whereas with humans, we have multiple variations and interpretations on the rules, because of our increased complexity. Perhaps that can sometimes be more of a weakness than a strength. Maybe it's another point for debate. ~_^[/QUOTE][/color][/size]
[size=2][color=#707875][/color][/size]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]There are many, many civilizations who have prospered for a very long time with relatively little civil unrest. The reason for this is that they kept their groups rather small, and were able to fit the morals and ethics of one particular group very well. When a civilization becomes too large, the best one can do is try and fit the wants and needs of the greater portion of the population. It has gotten to the point (at least in the U.S.) where not only is there a distinct separation between two groups of people (Democrats and Republicans), but also that the split is nearly even. If we were to split those two groups in half, I'm sure we would find even more distinct separations. There are too many interpretations being shoved close together, and though the United States may be powerful, it is in a downward spiral. It is more like an empire than a single country, and we all know what happens to empires.[/color][/size][/font]

[Lady_Rin]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS]
[COLOR=hotpink]
Adahn, I aoplogise about shooting the apple off your head. last night. I hope it didn't graze your scalp. LOL because it did seem to scramble your thought processes for a bit. LOLX2 Let me kiss it and make it better.[/color]

[quote=Adahn]
Nature, however, is not chaotic. Nature is balance.[/quote]

[COLOR=dodgerblue]
Nature is in balance, all the way up the food chain. The little eat the big. And then the earth shakes and volcanos erupt. For apparently no reason the alpaha male in a herd, pack, etc suddenly turns and attacks another member; why? In a hive a second born queen is given time to leave. Any that stay are hunted down. Water flows downhill, yet you can't step on the same piece of water twice even in a still pool. That's chaos. There is balance in chaos.[/COLOR]

[quote=Adahn]
Whenever man attempts to control nature, the result is simple and decisive. Nature wins. We may do very little damage in terms of the planet as a biosphere...[/quote]
[COLOR=dodgerblue]
Not really. East of Joshua Tree National Park is the Eagle Mt. open pit iron mine that:
is in the middle of an endangered species habitat, the Desert Tortise.
is on the edge of a wilderness area to the north and west.
and sits on top of an aquifier and a fault zone along the San Andreas fault.

(1)
The city of Los Angeles wants to use this mine as a landfill and make it the worlds largest garbage dump. For 200 years they want to dump the refuse and detritus of a city 150 miles away into an area where nothing deteriorates. {Sidebar: There are skeletons of trees standing here that are over 100 years old. If you would like more info pleaseask } the result of this invasion will destroy that part of the desert.

(2)
Hoover dam on the Colorado river was completed in 1936(?), almost 60 years ago. The concrete poured then is still curing and will not finish curing for another 50 years. The dam itself strides Black Canyon where the force of water and gravity hold it in place controlling the Colorado. Other dams along the river include, Glenn Canyon, Davis and Parker. This actually caused the Colorad River delta that to flowed into the Sea of Cortez to dry up and changed the ecology all along the river by eliminating the silt deposits needed by plants and animals to keep the river in "balance" The dams are expect to stand for thousands of years. Much of that water is being wasted in watering lawns in the low desert cities.[/color]

[COLOR=red]Who wins?
[/color]
[Quote=Adahn]
We may do very little damage in terms of the planet as a biosphere.[/quote]

[COLOR=dodgerblue]
I know a few people who say that. Yet we do make irrepairable damage to the environment. Very dramatic changes. Clear cutting a rain forest changes global weather patterns. Developing a desert uses valuable resourses that takes tens of thousands of years to replace.

Man raises global temps without even thinking about it. You contribute as well and not by emmisions from planes, trains and automobiles [size=1]esotric reference[/size]. It is done by pumping heat into the atmosphere. Every thing we do that uses energy only utilizes a portion of that energy to do it's function with heat given off as a waste product. A light bulb uses 30% of its' available energy and the rest is heat.

Fossil fuels; when they are used up they are gone. No more dinosaures to make it for us. POL is one of those things a civilazition needs to function. Without lubricants the world stops being civilized.

There is a also a finite amount of water. Of all the water in the world ~2% is fresh. Of that ~1.5% is available for our use. The rest of it is ice.

Anything you do is going to change the global ecology, from greenhouse gasses emmited from the back end of cows to waste heat from your TV, all of it goes into the atmsphere. The temps have to change, permanmently.

Yes, nature does repair itself in many instances .Look at the area around mount St. Helens. It was desolate after it blew in 1982(?). Today there is a burgeoning forest there. Many mineral resources shall eventually return to the earth as scrap heaps become mines from the deterioation of steel. On the other hand finite materials like fossil fuels, rain forests, and many animal species are forever gone from this planet.[/color]

[COLOR=red]Who's winning now?[/color]


[quote=The Free dictionary.com] 6:31 AM 11/14/2004
[SIZE=1][COLOR=deeppink]
In mathematics and physics, chaos theory deals with the behaviour of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that (under certain conditions) exhibit the phenomenon known as chaos, most famously characterised by sensitivity to initial conditions (see butterfly effect). Examples of such systems include the atmosphere, the solar system, plate tectonics, turbulent fluids, economies, and population growth.
[/color]

[URL=http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Chaos%20theory][COLOR=dodgerblue] For more information on chaos theory click here[/COLOR][/URL] ][/SIZE][/quote]

[COLOR=darkorchid]
[size=1]Lady Rin read degrees for Art and Geology and works for the USGS. Desert Ranger read degrees in engeering and geology. Some of the above materials were taken from papers written in school reading for our geology degrees.[/size][/color]

[/font]

[Adahn]

[b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=darkolivegreen]Don't worry about the apple :D [/color][/size][/font][/b]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]What we are doing is harming the ecosystems that have the smallest effect on us. I agree completely that this is going to come back and bite us in the rear-end, but we are relatively safe right now.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Nature will have the last laugh, as we ruin our water supply, overpopulate the earth, consume all its natural resources, and destroy its atmosphere. All it has to do is get rid of us, and it will restore order once again. There is a reason that all that goes against nature inevitably loses.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]On a different note, It seems odd how adamant we are about protecting endangered species. We were the ones that destroyed their habitats, and now we protect them? For what purpose? We are not about to do nature justice and restore the natural order of things, once again creating a niche for these creatures to live in. That would go against everything that is comfortable. If there's one thing we don't like, it's being uncomfortable.[/color][/size][/font]

[AzureWolf]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I'm not necessarily entering the debate, but I thought I'd point out something about chaos and nature.

Chaos is more a natural occurrence than something concieved artificially; hence the law of entropy. The existence of increasingly complex organisms (and even our own being) goes against this concept of timely decay. So, in essence, you could say that ALL creatures are against nature. As more and more complex organisms arise, there is more order and less entropy. In short, anything that is promoting the degradation of all matter into hydrogenous formations is natural.

So, to say that humans are chaotic is to say they are more natural than other creatures. If you ask anyone, they would say that [i]any life[/i] is very hypocritical of the nature of the universe. In other words, I don't think you can say that us humans creating more chaos is indicative of being against nature.

Now, whether or not the fact (well, my opinion) that man is very against nature in this sense is a good thing? Only [B]God[/B] knows. ;)[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Adahn']Yes, we do have the capability to destroy the ourselves quickly and efficiently. However, you would be hard-pressed to kill every single creature (namely cockroaches), and irreparably harm the earth.[/quote]I think a nuclear winter is pretty much irreparably harming the Earth, Adahn. You're talking about killing off all the vegetation, all of the animal life, contaminating the atmosphere for centuries, spewing all kinds of radiation into the air, mixing it into the water, destroying entire ecosystems, etc.

If you still want to say that isn't irreparably harming the Earth, then you're just ignoring what nuclear winter [i]really[/i] does.

Hell, with that level of eco-destruction associated with nuclear winter, [i]there is no nature left[/i]. The Earth becomes a dead celestial body, like the Moon.

[quote]The only reason we don't annihilate our enemies is because of fear of retaliation. There is no respect. We are not reducing the earth to an apple core, no, but we are slowly peeling away the many measures nature has taken to preserve life.[/QUOTE]No, the reason we annihilate our enemies is because of fear of continued attacks.

Let's take Afghanistan, for example, since we're talking about global conflict, and Afghanistan was pretty much the first step in the War on Terror.

The US could have easily nuked the whole of that country, just laid the entire mountain ranges to waste, obliterated the entire thing...the US could have made Afghanistan the Dresden of the War on Terror. Just reduce the entire country to cinders, really, make it so no life at all could ever live there again.

Yet, the US didn't, even though we had the capabilities, and even though we were hunting down our enemies. The US didn't bomb Afghanistan back into the Stone Age because using nuclear weapons would have been distastrous both on a global [i]political[/i] scale, and on a global [i]environmental[/i] scale.

I've said time and time again that MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction, which is what you're talking about here), a relic from the Cold War, when there were only [i]two[/i] nuclear superpowers in control, is simply a non-factor these days. You can't claim that MAD is the reason we don't use nuclear weapons, lol. We don't use nuclear weapons because it would mean the end of life as we know it, and plunge the Earth into a major environmental shitstorm that it may very well never recover from.

We're already annihilating our enemies and we're not using nuclear weapons. That's a pretty big sign that we're very concerned about the environment, Adahn. Humans are not "evil," and nature is not "good."

[i]Come on[/i]. You're spewing nonsense.

[Sara]

[quote name='Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If you want my opinion on what is natural for humans, I would point you in the direction of native tribes. You may call them undeveloped people, but I would say that we are overdeveloped. People were not meant to exist like we do. It is we who exist in the chaotic environment.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote][size=1]If anyone is interested in this point, I suggest they read [i]Ishmael[/i], by Daniel Quinn. I found it to be quite engaging when I read it a few years ago, and it talks quite a bit about different levels of "civilization." Interesting stuff.[/size]