Wynn Blog Entry #1: Human actions, natural?

"Is what humans do and create considered "Natural"?"

I have often debated to other people about this question. Many people believe humans, as a species, are destroying nature. This is backed by the facts that we are demolishing rain forests and animal's natural habitat, hunting endangered species such as the tiger, and polluting the ecosystem of the Earth via the burning of fossil fuels and disposal of harmful wastes into the ocean. 

All of these facts are 100% correct and I am not one to deny them. Humans do indeed seem to be destroying the nature from whence we came from though, given the chance on a clean, natural world, humans would likely follow a similar path all the time. It is natural for humans to do what we do. This leads me to ask the question above: "Is what humans do and create considered "Natural"?"

 Definitions:

So, what is the definition of natural? When it comes to philosophical topics your individual beliefs and interpretations of the definitions of such weighty words has a significant impact on your view of life. According to a simple Google search of the word "Natural" we are presented with two definitions.

adjective: natural
1.existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic"
2.in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
"sharks have no natural enemies"

The entry for "Nature" on Dictionary.com states the definition as the following:

noun
1.

the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2.

the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization.
3.

the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals,or rivers.
4.

natural scenery.
5.

the universe, with all its phenomena.

While the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia page "Nature" states:

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural,physical, or material world or universe. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.

It appears that there is a disparity between the accepted definitions.


Now, depending on which definition rings truest to you your opinions may differ. It seems there is uncertainty in the actual definition of nature by the consensus of the populace.
Following the definition provided by the Google search of: "existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind" this directly excludes intervention of humans. But surely that means humans must have their own form of nature; some kind of natural-for-humans term to counteract the imbalance proposed by this definition? Well yes, there is such a word; it is "Artificial" and directly describes actions which are the result of human intervention. Although “artificial” is not the term used to describe the natural acts of humans.

This leads me to consider the following question:
"Is it correct to say that artificial things are unnatural?"
The juxtaposition of the natural and artificial is really part of the natural world and has derived from nature itself. Without nature we humans would not have existed to create the artificial. It does not appear to be a Yin and Yang relationship since the natural can exist without the artificial though the artificial cannot exist without the natural whereas Yin and Yang is representative of two halves to one whole.


Personal View:

My answer the question of the above paragraph is No on the basis that the very existence of humans is natural. We came about at the whim of nature just as other animals have done so. Since we derive from nature the things we create should also be considered a part of nature. And what of things that are created by robots? This is also natural, in my personal view, as they are still a subset of nature. In fact, I believe it is incorrect to call artificial creations unnatural.

The definitions of “nature” provided by Dictionary.com mostly exclude humans from the definition, just as the first Google definition has. However I wish to draw your attention to the 5th definition provided:

5.
the universe, with all its phenomena.

Perhaps these definitions merely explain the term in different contexts and are not all universal definitions of the word to be used in every context at once. If they are all universal then this 5th definition is incompatible with the others, which clearly excludes humans actions from them.

Why is there this need to separate human acts from nature as if we are an abomination of nature?

I reckon this stems from the view of humans’ apparent destruction of what was once considered nature, referring to the plants and wildlife, and that what we must be doing is surely unnatural. However unnatural is a word that suggests defiance of nature. Certain views would claim that we are not defying nature but adapting to it, learning it, and using it.

Do I agree or Disagree to the question of the Blog?

In response to the question of this entry, my response is Yes. The acts of human are natural and the term “artificial” is not exactly the Yang to nature’s Ying and does not fill the role as being the opposite of nature.

Please take your time to form your own opinions on this matter. I hope to provide fuel for thought and stimulation for philosophical discussion in these blog posts. Thank you sincerely for taking the time to read this entry!

Author:
Clayton de Groot (Wynn)