NationStates

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:25 am**

Thought Experiment:

My house is not natural. My house was built by a group of human beings. Human beings who took a bunch of natural elements from the Earth and fabricated them into the shape of a house

My car is not natural. My car was built by a group of human beings. Human beings who took a bunch of natural elements from the Earth and fabricated them into the shape of a car

The rail line down the road from my house is not natural. My house was built by a group of human beings. Human beings who took a bunch of natural elements from the Earth and fabricated them into the shape of a rail line

So then why is an ant hill considered to be natural? Ant hills are natural. Ant hills were built by a group of ants. Ants who took a bunch of natural elements from the Earth and fabricated them into the shape of an ant hill

So then why is a bird's nest considered to be natural? Ant hills are natural. Ant hills were built by a group of birds. Birds who took a bunch of natural elements from the Earth and fabricated them into the shape of a birds nest

This is my thought experiment to you, NSG. Discuss...

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:28 am**

Uhhh... what are we supposed to discuss? You seem to have made all of the conclusions.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:33 am**

fair. made by HUMAN will and made by other animal will is a valid difference. at least to humans. but it makes sense to say that ant hills and bird nests are very different to a tree or animal and so not natural. ..artificial.. makes that distinction and ant hills are not artificial. still not sure what they are

it is interesting!

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:33 am**

Picairn wrote:Uhhh... what are we supposed to discuss? You seem to have made all of the conclusions.

We discuss what is and is not considered natural

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:35 am**

Australian rePublic wrote:
Picairn wrote:Uhhh... what are we supposed to discuss? You seem to have made all of the conclusions.

We discuss what is and is not considered natural

you have mined out the two best examples though. what about things made by robots.you mentioned cars.?

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:36 am**

Australian rePublic wrote:We discuss what is and is not considered natural

Oh ok, I believe the term "natural" is used for any product created by animals, to differentiate from products created by humans, "artificial".

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:39 am**

Picairn wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:We discuss what is and is not considered natural

Oh ok, I believe the term "natural" is used for any product created by animals, to differentiate from products created by humans, "artificial".

But are humans not naturally occuring animals on this little blue rock called Earth?

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:41 am**

Picairn wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:We discuss what is and is not considered natural

Oh ok, I believe the term "natural" is used for any product created by animals, to differentiate from products created by humans, "artificial".

Only one issue with your thought process humans are animals.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:50 am**

Australian rePublic wrote:But are humans not naturally occuring animals on this little blue rock called Earth?

Bougainville wrote:Only one issue with your thought process humans are animals.

Pretty sure humans are a different class of animals. I mean, we know how to walk on two feet, use tools and build stuff with two hands, as well as having a multitude of emotions, morals, and intelligence which are very different from other animals. Perhaps that is the use of the word "artificial", to differentiate between stuff created by humans and stuff created by other animals.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:52 am**

This is what I think is the answer to this thought experiment

Australian rePublic wrote:Thought Experiment:

My house is not natural. My house was built by a group of human beings. Human beings who took a bunch of natural elements from the Earth and fabricated them into the shape of a house

Let’s say that your house is made out of wood. Multible trees needed to be cut down and later turned into planks to make the floors and walls of your house. Planks cannot be found naturally, therefore your house isn’t natural

My car is not natural. My car was built by a group of human beings. Human beings who took a bunch of natural elements from the Earth and fabricated them into the shape of a car

A car is made out of several metals. Those metals needed to be mined out from the earth and melted to form the skeleton of the car (Im not a geologist). Those metals most likely united in the intense heat, therefore your car isn’t natural

The rail line down the road from my house is not natural. My house was built by a group of human beings. Human beings who took a bunch of natural elements from the Earth and fabricated them into the shape of a rail line

It’s the same argument as the car, but with a different metal

So then why is an ant hill considered to be natural? Ant hills are natural. Ant hills were built by a group of ants. Ants who took a bunch of natural elements from the Earth and fabricated them into the shape of an ant hill

An ant hill is made by a material that is the nearest to the queen (probably, im not a biologist), either sand or dirt. The ants do not change the physical propeties of the material, therefore it is natural

So then why is a bird's nest considered to be natural? Ant hills are natural. Ant hills were built by a group of birds. Birds who took a bunch of natural elements from the Earth and fabricated them into the shape of a birds nest

Same as the ant one, but with sticks

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:55 am**

Natural is unrefined and unaltered. Humans build out of concrete and steel, products that are very different in their natural state. Sticks and dirt are used as is.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:57 am**

Bougainville wrote:
Picairn wrote:Oh ok, I believe the term "natural" is used for any product created by animals, to differentiate from products created by humans, "artificial".

Only one issue with your thought process humans are animals.

nothing wrong with the thought process. just a logical controdiction from semantics! wont be the last time in this thread hey

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:01 am**

Ethel mermania wrote:Natural is unrefined and unaltered. Humans build out of concrete and steel, products that are very different in their natural state. Sticks and dirt are used as is.

unrefined by who and unaltered by who? ant hills are refined dirt and bird nests are. um. bits of natural debris altered in their arrangement maybe spat on by a bird. you need a better distinction than .altered. because a rock rolling down a hill alters stuff too

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:10 am**

Picairn wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:But are humans not naturally occuring animals on this little blue rock called Earth?

Bougainville wrote:Only one issue with your thought process humans are animals.

Pretty sure humans are a different class of animals. I mean, we know how to walk on two feet, use tools and build stuff with two hands, as well as having a multitude of emotions, morals, and intelligence which are very different from other animals. Perhaps that is the use of the word "artificial", to differentiate between stuff created by humans and stuff created by other animals.

This is a philosophical thought experiment. Of coarse I know the difference between things built by humans and things built by non-humans. This isn't a question about definitions, this is a philosophical game made to make us come up with a new way of thinking about the world

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:13 am**

Wabbit feefees wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:Natural is unrefined and unaltered. Humans build out of concrete and steel, products that are very different in their natural state. Sticks and dirt are used as is.

unrefined by who and unaltered by who? ant hills are refined dirt and bird nests are. um. bits of natural debris altered in their arrangement maybe spat on by a bird. you need a better distinction than .altered. because a rock rolling down a hill alters stuff too

Ask not what effect the rock has, ask who pushed the rock. Which then begs the question, what's the difference between a human pushing a rock and an elephant pushing a rock

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:19 am**

Australian rePublic wrote:
Wabbit feefees wrote:
unrefined by who and unaltered by who? ant hills are refined dirt and bird nests are. um. bits of natural debris altered in their arrangement maybe spat on by a bird. you need a better distinction than .altered. because a rock rolling down a hill alters stuff too

Ask not what effect the rock has, ask who pushed the rock. Which then begs the question, what's the difference between a human pushing a rock and an elephant pushing a rock

the rock was NOT pushed. it was under mined by erosion due to rainfall. does that make anything the rock hits and alters un natural?

only that humans are distinct and special to us. elephants probably feel the same. we are lower animals to them unless we catch and demesticate them. then who knows. if a tame elephant seems to have a sore foot do NOT put your head under to have a look!

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:26 am**

Why not ask the ants what they think of it?

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:29 am**

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:Why not ask the ants what they think of it?

to talk to the queen you have to put your head inside the ant hill. and thats not a good idea!

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:33 am**

Ethel mermania wrote:Natural is unrefined and unaltered. Humans build out of concrete and steel, products that are very different in their natural state. Sticks and dirt are used as is.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:37 am**

Appeal to nature fallacy. Animals can only be and do good, humans can only be evil. Therefore, a construction made from animals is good, holy and natural, while human constructions are evil and unnatural. People who employ this fallacy call everything human-made "unnatural" because they've been trained to unconditionally love nature.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:39 am**

-Ocelot- wrote:Appeal to nature fallacy. Animals can only be and do good, humans can only be evil. Therefore, a construction made from animals is good, holy and natural, while human constructions are evil and unnatural. People who employ this fallacy call everything human-made "unnatural" because they've been trained to unconditionally love nature.

So soup kitchens are natural? Bird baths are natural? Veterinary clinics are natural? Where do distinguish between good and evil?

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:59 am**

Wabbit feefees wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:Natural is unrefined and unaltered. Humans build out of concrete and steel, products that are very different in their natural state. Sticks and dirt are used as is.

unrefined by who and unaltered by who? ant hills are refined dirt and bird nests are. um. bits of natural debris altered in their arrangement maybe spat on by a bird. you need a better distinction than .altered. because a rock rolling down a hill alters stuff too

Those are items still in their native state.

Use "Processed", instead

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 5:09 am**

Australian rePublic wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:Natural is unrefined and unaltered. Humans build out of concrete and steel, products that are very different in their natural state. Sticks and dirt are used as is.

The snowmen don't count as natural. They have machined bits about them

The sandcastle does.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:37 am**

Hot take- since humans use natural materials, obey the laws of physics and aren't using magic, everything we make is actually completely natural. Houses are natural... in a world with humans.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:56 am**

Saying "all of them, except for us" is a Freudian admission that you already know "you" are part of "them."

NationStates

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Birds Nests

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Birds Nests