This is sort of a response to a blog post from yesterday. While writing this, I realized that I had a lot to say and a lot of questions. I thought that this might be well suited for a new post. I do not mean to insult the original poster; I merely hope that this can stimulate some good discussion by going off on some tangents.
I have been trying to form a general idea of what “nature” is and how we humans fit into it. I think that humans are, as animals, part of nature. In our class on Thursday, it seemed that many people (including myself) consider that trees, bacteria, and animals are part of nature. Like us humans, all of these organisms follow basic survival principles such as eating and reproduction (in some form or another). Following this train of thought, I believe that humans are a part of nature.
What is interesting to me is that this concept of nature only includes organic things; however, this framework seems incomplete in my eyes. I think someone in class said that the weather and rocks are also parts of nature, and I like this view. What do you guys think? Does nature include inorganic things as well?
One thing that I am torn between is the inclusion or exclusion of man-made objects into the concept of nature. I don’t know if houses or cars should be considered part of nature. One claim is that these objects don’t spontaneously form on their own and are thus “un-natural”. This makes sense to me. However, interestingly enough, I have asked several people if bird nests, beaver dams, etc. are part of nature, and the general response has been yes. I think that this is very interesting and that we should try to find out why this is. Are only man-made objects not considered part of nature, or does this also include objects made by other animals?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In terms of nature, I think that all things initially created are part of nature. This includes humans, animals, plants, bacteria, etc. They are all natural, having undergone "little or no processing and containing no chemical additives" ("natural", n.d.). If you use this definition of natural, you can also draw a distinct line between cars and houses, which are built out of manipulated resources (i.e. plastics, metals), and beaver dams, which are merely built out of timber and mud. I think confusion from this might stem from the way man manipulates his resources in a way that other living animals cannot. We have the ability to wield fire, which allows us to redistribute elements within an object, thus creating different chemical compositions. While all of these things exist in nature, per se, they cannot be created without the processing; therefore, they cannot be "natural".
ReplyDeletenatural. (n.d.). WordNet® 3.0. Retrieved January 20, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural.
I think Jamie said it perfectly, humans manipulate resources and therefore make them unnatural in my eyes. Beavers and birds take what is nature like that of humans but do not change the resources, just situate them in different ways so they work better for them. They aren't adding chemicals to make them stronger or anything like that. The wood and mud are still pure when its taken off the living tree and taken to their nest. I view rocks, etc as natural too, even if they are inorganic. Someone in class brought up a good point though, they are not necessarily evolving, which is one aspect we link with nature. Rocks do change though the years and with different layers of the earth but thats not really evolving in my eyes. However, without rocks or dirt or whatever it may be, nothing has anything to grow on or stand on. Without rocks and dirt we have nothing but a ball of water.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, manmade objects fall into a separate category of their own, consisting of semi natural objects. While it’s true they don’t just appear from nature itself, they are however made of natural objects. And if one were to argue that a beaver’s dam or a bird’s nest is still a part of nature because it’s made of materials found in the wild, then the same can be said of houses and cars, only in a more sophisticated manner. I think this topic deserves a lot more attention, since there is such ambiguity as to what qualifies as nature.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of the comments thus far. Thursday's class really got me thinking about the definition of nature. I feel as though we were taught in grade school that nature is the wind, the soil, the animals and trees. Where do cars and homes fit into that? However the point that such objects do not grow out of the earth but are created by man using natural objects is solid. Perhaps we got a little too carried away in class saying that by in large everything under the sun can be considered 'natural' due to this idea. Maybe there will be no answer to this question. Maybe people need to agree to disagree on what qualifies as nature but on the same hand realize that even though some may see an 18-wheeler as 'natural' not everyone needs to drive one for the sake of the environment. In that case, do some natural objects harm the environment? I am torn.
ReplyDeleteI believe that natural objects can harm the environment. For example, the “Red Tides” of toxic algae that occur worldwide can damage huge, oceanic ecosystems (for more information, go to the website at the bottom for a news article or Wikipedia search “red tide” for some interesting photos). Red tides occur when large amounts of algae quickly multiply in ocean waters. Some varieties of algae release toxins into the water, which can kill fish and birds in the area. Additionally, humans can get sick from exposure to red tides. Scientists have many hypotheses for the cause of why these toxic algae begin to multiply so rapidly, but no uniform cause is known. I definitely think that this event might count as natural objects harming the environment.
ReplyDeleteI hope this helped. There are probably more occurrences like this, but this was the only example that came to mind.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20010824redtides.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_tide
I think the idea of what “nature” is can be very tricky, in class it seemed that we came to an understanding that nature might be a particular order in which living and non-living organisms grow and adapt. However, if we consider what is on our planet is “nature” then what is to be said about the cosmic forces outer space? If you believe in the big bang then surely what created “nature” on this planet is also apparent in outer space?
ReplyDeleteWith every organism in our existence living and non-living, we as humans conceive them to have a start and a finish, a beginning and an end. However, in outer space there is concept that we as humans cannot comprehend; nothingness or the infinite. Scientists claim that in a black hole is infinite nothingness, but how could this be if “nature” requires some sort of order? It appears that either the idea of infinity either exits or doesn’t. If the infinite doesn’t exist then this must mean that there was something that came before the big bang and before that and before that and so on. If the infinite does exist then surely, this planet, our universe and everything that exists in it is just part of a greater whole and our idea of “nature” may not be what we thought.