human civilization as in big huge city and buildings, cars that produce pollutants, or even nuclear bombs. Not to forget synthetic products and machines and so on.

why aren't these considered as part of nature?

whereas a simple beaver dam is consider as nature.

A beaver dam is beavers habitat made from logs.

beaver dam is still controllable by the food chain
natural selection still empower

human broke out from their chain and began repopulate like cancer.
once a human is sacrificed under other animal, the animal will be terminated.

came to think of it, maybe homosexual is also the part of the nature for human being as they are over populated......

the world without mass massacre or any method to cut human population in half, the future for other creature is bleak....

Some people have egos that are too big, they think they are not part of nature.

Seriously, nature and natural has come to mean "good" or not man-made. Of course what is "good" and what isn't depends on who you ask. But not man-made is less controversial.

So if one day we do make the grey goo, and it builds a dyson sphere. Then that dyson sphere would be entire natural. Or not. Please start arguing.

---

Added on August 29, 2011, 12:28 amOh, I forget to add, homosexuality is entire natural. I'm using "natural" here as in animals in the wild (not in captivity), not under unusual stress (eg overcrowding) has been observed doing it.

This post has been edited by dkk: Aug 29 2011, 12:28 AM

by "good" you mean balance ?
i thought everything happened is random, natural happenings doesn't care if the effects really balance the ecosystem....

example like :
meteorites falling from sky, damaging the earth, cause forest fire, extinction of certain species.
ice age, volcano eruption, earthquake etc

for some reason, if we see the world in a bigger picture, i still doubt that man-made is considered unnatural....
since we are part of the nature, and what we does somehow similar to the beaver that build its dam....
imagine all the creatures started at the same starting point, and we ended up becoming the deadliest survivors by nature selection.
we became who we are by what we capable of (what nature's offering us)

on the other hand, the fall of human kind, or the destruction of earth maybe a big thing to us,
but it doesn't seem any significant even if we are totally wiped out from the earth....

---

Added on August 29, 2011, 4:55 ami got another theory
nature or not, it is just a definition/classification created by human through their studies (science)
you should know that man classifies nature/creation and man-made to differentiate nature from civilization

the only thing unnatural to the earth might be those rocks we brought from the orbits (outer space)

This post has been edited by 9876789: Aug 29 2011, 04:55 AM

Nature is the law of existence that created everything, beaver dam, bee hive... are not processed into different products that cannot be recycled or no longer usable by nature and destructive. That is why cancerous because the process deplete natural resources and no ending cycle, homosexual said to exist long ago but never reported to reduce human population, so it is not a Nature's way to control homo sapient.

If it is, then its ineffective, maybe thats why Aids and other deadly disease along with cancer is meant to control human population. By the physical build, we are still apart of nature but when human is able to create bio mechanical suit and replacement internal organs, the created recreates as god created human in his image.

This post has been edited by 3dassets: Aug 29 2011, 09:52 PM

"good" as in "good".
as in "This food supplement is good because it is entirely natural. Contains no chemicals! "

We're not yet capable of destroying the earth. "Destroy" not meaning "to make unsuitable for human habitation", but like blown up into tiny pieces like Superman's planet.

---

Added on August 29, 2011, 10:30 pmWe can already replace one internal organ. The heart is an internal organ. The others will require a bit of patience still ..

Nature's way to control human population growth is called health care and economic development. It has been observed that there is a strong positive correlation between health care + economic development and reduced fecundity.

This post has been edited by dkk: Aug 29 2011, 10:30 PM

Health care and economic development are human creations, perhaps when technology matures, the created will manage creations without destroying the host which is the direction we are heading. The term "civilization" is not live like animal or in the limit of nature, nothing much to debate about this subject.

I have always believed that humans = animals.

There? See what your mind just did? It rejected this statement because the origin of our civilization has always classified ourselves higher than any other living entity as the smartest species.

I don't see why humans are not like animals - we are just smarter than all other animals and that we are able to research and develop and construct more complex than them. They do that too, but on a much, much smaller scale.

What you said bear no meaning, we are human by physiology but not by mentality, some animal do build their house but primitive, rainbow trout even go against the current to spawn but that is it.

You assimilate human = animal is because you lack knowledge and make shallow judgement, now don't feel offended, I know how it feels being called shallow but can't find a better way to break it to you, just because you can say anything online does not mean you should.

No. that isn't true. Actually

humans ⊂ animals

You are comparing the "Build Environment" to the "Natural Environment".

Both are obviously different.

Regards.

all this is just a form of perspective

from human's perspective it happens to be that way....natural and man-made
why so? maybe ego, maybe just to differentiate......

doesn't seem important to me anyway

why is it different?

what human do is also part of the nature. so it should be part of nature no matter or destructive it is.
natural disasters are destructive and it is consider as nature

Humans/animals are the same. Like I said before, we have a higher level of thinking - that's it. From this point on, we have built and designed the world around us while animals do the same.

Do remember that everything we have constructed or built today came from natural resources. Every single standing structure. Plastic or metal or wood. Animals do the same albeit in a more primitive way. I don't believe humans evolved from "animals" since well, I don't believe in evolution, that's a different story.

I will bring in the fact that there have been humans who have run off into the jungle, been 'adapted' to live with animals, you know, the weird stories of jungle man/woman. The animals seem to be able to 'accept' these humans as their own kind. Even pets we have today seem to be able to 'accept' us when we nurture them from young. Acceptibility does not mean we are the same, it just goes to prove that we can all get along together and there is no real reason to say animals / humans are not equals. Does a chimpanzee have the same intelligence as a fish? Well, they both have their set of intelligence to survive. It's that simple. We are just at the top of the intelligence group.

This post has been edited by defaultname365: Sep 9 2011, 01:44 PM

I think you spew nonsense everywhere just because you don't believe in evolution, it contradicted with everything else because they are interrelated and only scientist / researchers provide the most probable findings.

The medicine you take is not the best and only solution but proven to cure, however, some people do die after taking because they are the minority who have adverse reaction to it, just like some animal may not evolve.

^ Too bad can't read crap since ignored. Seem you did reply to my other posts too. I only respect those who respect me and that's it. You might have posted something constructive and I would appreciate it, but heck, you seem like a regular around here. Just don't get too attached at phd, you might spin your head too much over garbage.

Going into the wild, human are food to predator and you can try go live with tiger and proof your mighty mind, I can't call you stupid because you don't understand the meaning.

Notice I only reply to nonsense?

This post has been edited by 3dassets: Sep 9 2011, 08:14 PM

zzz.....

we are animals..zzzz.....


our ego is the one that makes us cant admit that..zzzz...

Wrong statement, we are animal physiology but not the mind, human don't live and behave like animal that rely on simple instinct. Who we are is by knowledge and experience, the physical body is a biological machine that house the brain where we live in, close your eyes to go back to yourself and feel every part of your body by thought.
The real us don't have a physical form and there lies your ego, a social product by age and location, an animal don't adopt, adapt and recreate that become intelligent, if you still think you are an animal, take off your clothes and go live in the jungle because you are a waste of education.

If you've ever had a pet like a cat or a dog, you'd notice that they do seem to have a mind. They do not seem to react by instinct alone.

Domesticated animal will not survive in the wild because they lost their chance to learn the skill to look for food, wild animal carry killer instinct with them even if captured and tamed by human, when these instinct are triggered and tasted human blood, they are put to death as the best precautionary measure. Why? Because instinct too is memory and its function is to adopt and adapt, this also enable mutation of cell beyond the control of the mind.

Having pet does not mean one understand animal better, it has to come from research and comparison and that is how we are educated.