Nature and the nature cycle self-caused motion, therefore is it possible then to disrupt this balance of movement? Like Pollan’s example with the genetically modified potato. We are modifying the natural process of movement and growth. Are we moving what should not be moved? I doubt that Aristotle ever imaged how our technology would advance to modify nature itself. Our destructive and dominating ways I believe could alter the effects of motion. As humans, we can essentially bump self-caused motion off course. Then does this fall under Aristotle’s category of incidental motion? The text states that everything, which causes motion, is also moved. I just wonder and worry that if humans incidentally put things into motion that otherwise are unmoved what will happen? I suppose this is already happening with the diminishing landscape.
Aristotle is defining motion as a major part of defining nature. Nature he says is the animals and plants and the cosmos as a whole. Are humans considered in this definition? Their individual nature is their form and they are all being at work in a natural way. The plants circle the air in the earth, animals eat from the earth, and humans once lived by similar principles and lived with the natural cycles. We are now disregarding and interrupting the cycles that allowed us once to survive. We can survive without the cycles by technology, an unnatural form that did not come from the earth. How does technology fit into natural motion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my opinion, I don't think technology fits into nature. Humans were most likely put on earth to work with nature (that from which it came), not to overrule it and destroy. Technology, and the production of newer technology, is slowly destroying our world. Sometimes I think the human brain has gone too far in the wrong direction (against nature)... and I don't think that we're going to stop.
ReplyDeleteI think there are two types of technology; that which works against nature and that which works with it. Though we can survive without technology, there is no doubt that some technology has helped us survive longer. (Antibiotics anyone?) I guess I have trouble deciding if this type of technology is working with or against nature. But if humans are part of nature (which I think you have agreed to), then I think that the technology that helps us survive would be working with nature. There are however, the other technologies which don't help us survive, and only make our lives more comfortable, are the ones that I think work against nature. So therefore, I think I might answer your question by saying that I believe some technology fits into natural motion, while other types of nature do not.
ReplyDelete