To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 26067
26066  |  26068
Subject: 
Re: Natural (was: Why...)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:43:22 GMT
Viewed: 
2483 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
  
You seem to be missing the point. Humans are part of nature, are they not? If you disagree, then please articulate your argument. But if you agree, then you must cede that anything that humans (who are subsets of the group Nature) do is natural (i.e., part of nature).

This brings up an idea that has been through my head on several occasions - if you use the definition “part of nature” for natural, then what can be defined as unnatural? After all, everything on this earth has been created by nature, either directly or indirectly, hasn’t it? Even the most amazing chemical concoction has been made, in the end, from natural ingredients and know-how. Is anything unnatural?

Well, everything that exists operates within the laws of nature, that doesn’t mean it was created through natural processes. The natural ingredients and know-how that create a chemical concoction are natural, but the concoction itself isn’t natural, as it doesn’t occur naturally (without human intervention). But, the concoction itself is subject to nature’s laws.

Well, that’s how I was leaning too, ie natural = occurs without human intervention. However, I have often heard the argument Dave used above, which seems to contradict that, or at least not fit it exactly. And I don’t think I’ve ever seen a definition of natural that includes anything along the lines of “occurs without human intervention”. Dictionary.com has “6. Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.”, but that’s not really the same thing.

Is this just a case of a word that has changed it’s meaning in common usage over time, but no-one ever bothered to update the dictionary?

ROSCO



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Why these news groups were created
 
(...) Well, everything that exists operates within the laws of nature, that doesn't mean it was created through natural processes. The natural ingredients and know-how that create a chemical concoction are natural, but the concoction itself isn't (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR