It's not natural
 

Oftentimes one will hear the phrase, "It's not natural" or, "X is not natural." What is really meant by this phrase? I think that it can be best described by either of the following statements:<blockquote>"It's not moral." <i>or</i>
"It comes from or has been influenced by humans"</blockquote>
Now, I have some serious problems with this concept.

"Natural" is defined as "<i>Present in or produced by nature</i>". The very first page of my Biology 101 textbook told me that man was not apart from nature, but rather a part of it. This coincides with the definition, since nature produced man. In fact, all of the supposedly "evil" things that we created (computers, factories, cars, bridges, etc.) are all made of materials that come from nature, and are put together by a being that is of nature. They exist on the Earth, which is nature. So by what definition are these things "not natural"? They're made of things that come from the Earth, by things that come from the Earth, and they exist on the Earth.

Why do so many people think that humans are innately evil? Is it because of Christianity and its self-hating philosophy? Other animals do evil things, yet they are excused because they are "a part of nature".

I don't get it. Could someone please explain to me how humans are not evil and also not natural?

Re: It's not natural
 

Evil according to whom?? You're imposing your human-centric world view on the poor beasts! :cool:

Well, permit me to suggest that when you hear someone say "that's not natural," you simply subsitute "I don't like it and I don't have a good reason."

As you point out, in a certain sense an apartment building may not be natural--but if it's not, neither is a beaver's dam or a bee's hive. The word "natural" in this context is completely void of meaning, and is a blank slate upon which the speaker can lay his or her prejudices. Feel free to ignore its use; you have my permission. :angel:

Very simple.
Human behavior~ Natural means doing what I think is OK.
~ Not natural means doing something I woudn't do, if I thought I might get caught.

Animal behavior~ Natural means my dog is supposed to shit in your yard and hump your leg.
~ not natural means your dog's doing it.

Food~ Natural means no man made compounds, only things that occur naturally like lead, arsenic, mercury, etc.
:D

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So, any fertilizer used has to come from non-human animals? Damn, not even our crap is natural...

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Jokes aside the idea is that humans violate nature. Thus are unnatural. I really think Steve and Bruce nailed it. To give an example, I've heard people argue that homsexuality is unnatural because it's unique to humans. When I pointed out that was absolutely false, even pointed out that a dog on a leg is cross-species as well as often same gender I was told that was due to human influence. Go figure.For the record I did bring up other animals, such as rats, and was told that was scientists just finding what they wanted to. Again, go figure.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;End of the day, I agree it's just a cop-out.

MALICE & FORETHOUGHT is the key difference between us and the critters.
Bitten by mosquito to swallowed by a whale, we generally rationalize they're just doing what comes naturally. We were invading their turf and frightened them, threatened their young or they were feeding and we got in the way.
We expect a rational and reasoned responce from humans. Humans are viewed as above nature and held accountable for their actions even (maybe especially) if they respond exactly like the other critters. That's why when confronted by senseless violence we say "(S)He's nothing but a damn animal".
If you see a kid with a jackknife stripping the bark from a tree, you chastise them because they should know it will kill the tree. Whereas a bull elk rubbing the velvet off it's antlers is just natures way, even though the result is the same for the tree.
Although the Pine Bark Beetle and loggers both kill a forest there will always be a double standard of accountability.
Animal populations boom and bust regularly because they don't have Live Aid or UNICEF. We are not masters of all we survey but we are the meanest sumbitches in the valley. :shotgun:

This has me thinking about our old buddy Artist Eduardo Kac and his transgenic artworks - like Alba the bunny. Seems like this question of defining nature is just getting warmed up. Is this evil, or interesting? I'm intrigued, if a little creeped out.

Good grief, warch. That's more than creepy. Forgive them father, for they know not what they do.:(

Kac's piece Genesis, along with others, is coming to our museum this January. Its gonna be a challenge. Here's the skinny. It's rather on topic for this thread:

I think he uses these odd experiments to raise issues about the changing philosophies of science, and thats a good thing.

Quote
"Let man have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." It was chosen for what it implies about the dubious notion of divinely sanctioned humanity's supremacy over nature.

That sentence and sentiment are creations of human beings. they are both based on a truth that was proven milleniums before that piece was written.
We ARE the baddest sumbitches in the valley and that's what gives us dominion. Nature works that way for ALL critters.
What Kac is questioning is a written statement of import to a minority of a minority of a minority. Christians who follow the old testament and take it literally.
This makes me wonder how this high rent science project qualifies as art, even though it's train wreck fascinating.:cool:

I'll argue that that sentence, from the book of Genesis, has had a profound influence on the historic direction of western science and technology. And though the text itself maybe recognizable today only a smaller group of hardcore Christians, I think its an interesting choice for his text, translation, coding and recoding thing.

And eventhough we are bad sumbitches, nature still has the power to give us a run. (virus, tsunami, stampeding elephants).

Another artist in the exhibition, Daniel Lee has some really haunting photographs that explore the badass possibilities. As we are now able to create lifeforms, whose to say we might not stumble upon, or persue an even badder sumbitch. Whose to say that what we create will lesser, not be our equal, or superior? (cue planet of the apes reel one)

The power inherent in biology is worthy of attention.- Jules Verne... The fact and the fiction. Is it hell or utoptia- or something navigated down the middle. Is Kac's thing art? I say yes, its a visually compelling presentation about these ideas. Just as a science fiction novel, or film, it provides a visual way to cue discussion. Interestingly the major support for the larger exhibition came from theAnimating Democracy Initiative .

The only reason we survive at all is because nature USUALLY moves slowly. We don't hold a candle to natures power.
But we do hold dominion over the other critters. The herd of stampeding elephants can kill people but couldn't make us extinct. You know we can and almost have the reverse.
The question that people hang on people is what responsibility comes with this power. The deer don't ask the hunters, the anti-hunters ask the hunters. The critters just accept it.
Nature has the power to take this superior position away from us at any time by coming up with something badder. But I just as soon people didn't try to create new things that we aren't sure won't have dominion over us.
Other than being more expensive, whats the difference between Kac's show and spelling the passage out in alphabet soup and stirring with a spoon? Oh wait, lower forms have to do it. OK, throw a couple frogs in the soup.
I'm in awe of the whole invent a gene, splice into bacteria and mutate them, process. What scares me is that someone with that power and ability is so off the wall he would waste it discrediting a passage in a book that doesn't mean a tinkers damn. There are many worthy goals for scientists to pursue. :)

We're unlocking nature's power at an amazing rate, as in genomic research. And although those elephants couldnt probably squish us all, a pesky bacteria could have a good crack at it.
Too late.
Now what do we do? Who decides?
What Kacs is about is what do we do with this knowledge? How can we direct this power ethically?
I think the main difference is that he is using the tools and processes of the contemporary genetic research- by creating a synthetic gene, as has occured in labs around the world- mutating it through the participation of viewers-he's got his hands and our hands on this power. And I think that helps make the mysterious potential a bit more real and compelling, at least for me.

Not any wierder than Dolly.And I dont see this as a waste, simply because as this work tours, all that see it have the discussion we're having. That's what this is all about. What are worthy goals for science and who gets to decide?

That's right! And this clown is making new spliced bacteria and mutating them into God knows what for art? Not only is he making things of unknown power with unknown consequences, he's not even doing it in a secure lab. He's doing it in your museum.:eek:
What? Too late? What have they made that we can't control, that's killing off mankind?
I can't make that stretch from what I've seen so far, but I'll take your word on it.
OK, let's give every third grader a cyanide capsule and see what they do with them. Now there's potential and what third graders do with things they're entrusted with is pretty much a mystery. Think that's ridiculously irresponsible? Bingo.
Dolly was weird, but not dangerous in itself. Successful cloning isn't a danger but unsuccessful attempts could be. If he wanted to get people talking, all he had to do was whip up a man eating virus and take out Chicago or St Louis.:rolleyes:
Half the people who have ever lived, that's ever as in always, died from mosquitoes. How's that for a clear and present danger they could be working on? But alas, they've pretty much taken care of that problem where it's economically viable. That's who gets to decide, as much as I dislike it

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Actually I've heard a lot of compelling arguments that AIDS and the Ebola virus are both man made. Admittedly every bit of it is foil beanie stuff and entirely circumstantial but it's something to think about isn't it?

I know, Whit. I've read a lot of them too. That's what worries me about this stuff.
Our gummint made weaponized anthrax, but that couldn't fall in the wrong hands, could it. :rolleyes:
No matter how ethical these dudes are, they publish their research including the blind alleys they went up that might be of value to unethical people. You know like, when I did this it didn't work because it produced a poison that one drop would kill a billion people.:eek:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; So, where does that leave us? Spiraling towards being wiped out by a disease or superior being that will eventually replace us? Kinda neat idea actually.

Trying to make sure I don't die horny. Wait...that was another thread. Oh well, it's still true. :D

I would see "natural" as being the circumstances that we were made (evolved, created) to live in and the things that we were made (evolved, created) to do.

The way that we live is tremendously different from the way that we lived even eight thousand years ago. There are probably twenty or thirty people living in the same appartement building that I do (I'm not sure if the bottom level is actually a floor of appartements). During most of human (pre)history, this number of people would have lived in a much, much larger space.

A hundred years ago, there were no monitors. I've been on the computer for three hours (agh!). This would have never happened even a hundred years ago. Hell, most humans have spent the majority of their time looking for food. Through most of my life, the majority of my time has probably been spent reading. Is that natural?
Nah.

Traditionally, people spent the majority of their time living in small groups. Most of the human diseases act slowly, spread slowly, and leave the victim a long time to live (malaria). The majority of the diseases we worry about today (eg, influenza) spread quickly and act quickly -- they aren't native to humanity, they're native to herd animals whose ways and lifestyles and vulnerabilities we're adopting (fowl, pigs, cows, chickens). We have resistance to natively-human diseases (sickle cells), much more so than to the diseases we didn't grow up with.

As I've heard it, Whit, HIV/AIDS is derived from primates. I've read that AIDS may have been recorded in human populations 80 years ago that were in close contact with chimpanzees. Some primates can contract the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Actually Torr, as I understand it the virus had to mutate a fair amount to make the jump to humans. Their is some question as to the whys and hows of it. As far as 80 years ago goes, can you back this? As fast as this disease spreads I'm having trouble buying that. If it came out that far back then I would have expected an epidemic more than 40 years ago. Didn't happen. Damn, if it would have come out back then, in the 'Roaring 20's'.... Oh my...

I remember reading an article back when AIDS was just a "fag" disease.
The author was trying to make a case for the virus jumping to humans during an experiment (British, I think) in Africa back in the 20's or 30's. The primate's they took blood from were immune to malaria, so they tried to pass that immunity on to a group of people by injecting them with this primate blood.
The test was unsuccessful but it was supposed to be in the same general area the AIDS first appeared.
This article was in a mainstream magazine or maybe even a newspaper because I remember at the time I thought it wasn't a publication I'd take very seriously without collaboration. :confused:

I've been doing some Googleing (Googling?) on Mr Kac.
I'm getting the impression that I have misjudged him and his intentions.:blush:
I think warch had correctly judged (and stated) his agenda in stageing this tour/performance.
I'm still having a hard time with glowing green bunnies and dogs, though.:p

Um, crap. The link to the article I was referring to is on a hard drive I don't have anymore. Anyway, I think it was from a diary of a nurse in Africa who noted AIDS-like symptoms in a patient. I remember that I had made the search after reading from Guns, Germs, and Steel, but I can't remember the query anymore.

The earliest confirmed case comes from the Congo in 1959, the earliest reported case is from 1978, and the earliest confirmed case in America comes from 1968 [stupid article].

The best evidence I could find for pre-1959 cases comes from here, here, and here.


Exhaustive, oddball google searches can be really fun. I've found texts blaming the demonization of the penis on St. Augustine, and texts that say that the theory that AIDS originated from Africa is racist. I've found conspiracy theories suggesting that the CIA created AIDS, and that aliens created AIDS. I've found nearly equal numbers of sites saying that AIDS was spread by a polio vaccine, and claiming that the polio theory is dead.

It seems to me that since people don't die from AIDS, but other diseases that AIDS prevents the body from combating, it could have been killing people for years. Where medicine is primarily clinics and shamans, AIDS could have easily been overlooked and the deaths blamed on the disease that actually made the person succumb.