Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Humanities Why aren't human civilization not consider as part, of nature?

views
     
dkk
post Aug 29 2011, 12:26 AM

10k Club
Group Icon
Elite
11,400 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
Some people have egos that are too big, they think they are not part of nature. smile.gif

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. smile.gif


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. smile.gif

This post has been edited by dkk: Aug 29 2011, 12:28 AM
dkk
post Aug 29 2011, 10:23 PM

10k Club
Group Icon
Elite
11,400 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(9876789 @ Aug 29 2011, 04:48 AM)
by "good" you mean balance ?
i thought everything happened is random, natural happenings doesn't care if the effects really balance the ecosystem....
"good" as in "good".
as in "This food supplement is good because it is entirely natural. Contains no chemicals! " smile.gif

QUOTE
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....
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 pm
QUOTE(3dassets @ Aug 29 2011, 09:40 PM)
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.
We can already replace one internal organ. The heart is an internal organ. The others will require a bit of patience still .. smile.gif

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
dkk
post Sep 8 2011, 11:32 PM

10k Club
Group Icon
Elite
11,400 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(defaultname365 @ Sep 8 2011, 01:25 PM)
I have always believed that humans = animals.
No. that isn't true. Actually

humans ⊂ animals
dkk
post Sep 10 2011, 01:02 AM

10k Club
Group Icon
Elite
11,400 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
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.

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0188sec    0.30    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 1st December 2025 - 03:50 AM