Are Humans still a part of Nature?

[LycanSpectre]

Simple question. Are Humans still a part of Nature, or have we become part of something else? Check misanthropic comments at the door.


I think that while we did grow from nature and at one time embraced it, I believe that we have grown into something else. We can adapt nature to our desires, just as nature was once able to force us to adapt it its whims. Nature no longer holds its sway over us the way it used to. While we have not broken any laws of nature outright, we have bent quite a few to the limit.

[GoddessWolf]

But in pushing those limits of bending nature to our will, do we not cause a greater rupture in nature's pattern. Perhaps this is why we have so many earthquakes, and volcanic eruptures, and natural disaters. It's mother natures way of telling us that no matter how far we evolve we are still subject to her whim.

Of course some are bound to happen naturally, but did you ever stop to think that maybe this is a warning to slow down and preserve some part of what we used to consider our sole means of survival, nature in itself. What created us, can just as easily destroy us.

[LycanSpectre]

But in pushing those limits of bending nature to our will, do we not cause a greater rupture in nature's pattern. Perhaps this is why we have so many earthquakes, and volcanic eruptures, and natural disaters. It's mother natures way of telling us that no matter how far we evolve we are still subject to her whim.

Of course some are bound to happen naturally, but did you ever stop to think that maybe this is a warning to slow down and preserve some part of what we used to consider our sole means of survival, nature in itself. What created us, can just as easily destroy us.

Yes I have actually. I think that the earthquaques, diseases, etc could very well be a warning, which is precisly why I think we have grown into something else. Mother Nature is telling us to come home, we have strayed to far. We ignore the fact that we are not the only inhabitatnts of this planet, and that we can userp only so much before we knock the circle of life so far out of whack, we suffer too. If we were sill a part of nature, would such a warning be necessary?

[GoddessWolf]

Very good point.
Humans do things before they have the time to consider what will happen as the end result.

Nature is fighting one day at a time, but we continue to destroy our home. Without trees, the oxygen level decreses, making the already tainted air harder to breathe, which causes health issues, and so on and so forth.

Humans think they are Gods, when we clearly are not. Life is given in an instant, and taken away just as quickly.

[silenceowl]

I think we are part of nature, and nothing we can do can make it any different. No matter how advanced we become we are natures design, no matter how tecnologically advanced we become, no matter how much we forget about the world around us, we are part of it.

Nothing we can do.

[GhostBat]

I agree with Silenceowl.

Everything we do, it is because of nature. Humans have been designed by nature, and can never "break" from the bond that holds us together. Saying Humanity is no longer a part of nature is like saying a a Lion's brain is no longer a Lion's brain, because the Lion has learned new skills and techniques to hunt its prey.

[LycanSpectre]

I can see where you are coming from, but it doesn't feel right to me.....
There is no proof either way, its all opinion. :shrug:

I think that we have outgrown our ecological niche, whatever that was in the first place.

[silenceowl]

No I think this can be pretty much proven.

We are animals, we are part of nature.

I like what batty said about a lions brain.

Everything we make is part of nature.

An ape uses a stick to get ants, does the fact that the ape used the stick in a way that it is not meant to be used mean the ape and the stick are no longer part of nature?

[LycanSpectre]

We, are animals, we are part of nature

Frist part is a fact. Second is opinion.

I like what batty said about a lions brain.

What Batty said about the Lion was opinion.

Everything we make is part of nature.

Opinion. What we make is DERIVED from natural materials, but does not occur on its own in nature. Using this argument to support your hypothesis is like saying that blue is blue. It doesn't clarify anything. Everything we make exists because humans, not nature formed them. Nature just supplied the raw materials. In many of the things we form. it would be impossible to undo the forming process. Nature cannot re-use those materials, because they are so severly altered.

An ape uses a stick to get ants, does the fact that the ape used the stick in a way that it is not meant to be used mean the ape and the stick are no longer part of nature?

The stick is still a stick. It can still be used as a stick. The ape is still an ape. they were not altered from their most natural state. Humans alter everything, some things in such a way that it is impossible to return it to its natural state. How is that natural?

[GoddessWolf]

Thats not true. Some things we make start out using things found in nature, but blended with other components create things never found in nature. Meaning chemistry. They create and mix chemicals all the time.

[LycanSpectre]

The atom has never been split naturally. We did that. That is not natural.

[Xzengrim]

I'm going to say that we ARE part of nature. Think of it this way... if humans suddenly disappeared, what would happen to nature? Not too much, I'm betting. But what would happen if nature suddenly died out? All of the humans on earth would go extinct, pretty dang quick. It's true.

Besides... other animals can shape nature. Beavers can build houses and dam rivers and such, monkeys can make beds and use tools, even wolves can dig out a burrow. Very primitive ventures to be sure, but in the end is there really a difference between a house and a den? They do the same thing. Humans can shape nature the most radically, but that does not mean they have left it completely.

Although, I seem to remember that in the Bible it says something about how humans are above nature, and were supposed to run the place. Not that I believe in that, but if you ask some religious people, they might tell you that god put us in charge of nature.

[Darth Cluich]

I'm going to say that we ARE part of nature. Think of it this way... if humans suddenly disappeared, what would happen to nature? Not too much, I'm betting. But what would happen if nature suddenly died out? All of the humans on earth would go extinct, pretty dang quick. It's true.

Your logic -- if it can be called that -- is baffling.

[Loups_Garou]

I'm going to say that we ARE part of nature. Think of it this way... if humans suddenly disappeared, what would happen to nature? Not too much, I'm betting. But what would happen if nature suddenly died out? All of the humans on earth would go extinct, pretty dang quick. It's true.

Besides... other animals can shape nature. Beavers can build houses and dam rivers and such, monkeys can make beds and use tools, even wolves can dig out a burrow. Very primitive ventures to be sure, but in the end is there really a difference between a house and a den? They do the same thing. Humans can shape nature the most radically, but that does not mean they have left it completely.

Although, I seem to remember that in the Bible it says something about how humans are above nature, and were supposed to run the place. Not that I believe in that, but if you ask some religious people, they might tell you that god put us in charge of nature.


You're right about the bible thing. In genesis it says that God told Adam and Eve that they they were to fill the Earth and subdue it, and the creatures of the heavens and beasts of the plains and even the great sea monsters would be in their subjection. It also says, though, that they were to spread the paridasaic state of the Garden of Eden through the entire world, so we were meant to run things but also to take care of them and to work in harmony with what God had created and to be in subjection only to him. What humans are doing now is destroying Gods creation in order to further their own selfish desires, decemating entire eco-systems and driving animals out to extinction, most humans don't care about anything but themselves and that is what is unnatural. None of this really belongs to us, and you shouldn't treat something that belongs to someone else like it's just some worthless crap.

As an example, say a friend of yours asks you to watch their house while they're away on a vacation or some such thing. You go into their home, eat all of their food, burn their plant, steal all of their clothes, and kill all of their pets. That's just freakin wrong, and in escence that is what humans are doing to Earth, God is letting us stay here, everything in the universe belongs to him, but instead of being appreaciative and taking good care of it, most people treat it like trash.

[Ash]

Okay say for a sec that the group that believes we are no longer part of nature and natural disasters and epidemics are warnings that we're abusing our good fortune- let's just say for a moment that they're right.

Then what's your solution?

Do we 'go back to nature'? An incredibly difficult if not impossible task?

There are now BILLIONS of people living on this earth BILLIONS people, without farming, commercial fishing, ranching, and industry how many of them will starve?

We cannot become subsistence hunter gatherers without massive and unrealistic loss of life, and the alternative, that is ultra green solar panel electric car living is far too expensive for most of the western world let alone the rest of the world.

So, what's your solution?

[Loups_Garou]

Okay say for a sec that the group that believes we are no longer part of nature and natural disasters and epidemics are warnings that we're abusing our good fortune- let's just say for a moment that they're right.

Then what's your solution?

Do we 'go back to nature'? An incredibly difficult if not impossible task?

There are now BILLIONS of people living on this earth BILLIONS people, without farming, commercial fishing, ranching, and industry how many of them will starve?

We cannot become subsistence hunter gatherers without massive and unrealistic loss of life, and the alternative, that is ultra green solar panel electric car living is far too expensive for most of the western world let alone the rest of the world.

So, what's your solution?

It needn't be as drastic as giving up technology enitrely. Little things here and there would help alot more then one would think. Stop wasting so much food and water, don't drive somewhere that you could easily walk or ride a bike to just to save 5 minutes, less littering more recycling, use less rescources, if it's cold just bundle up you don't NEED to burn 10 gallons of oil just to stay warm for a few hours, no more sport/trophy hunting, less deforestization, the world can do without mahogany back-scratchers, and stop using so many freakin chemicals!

[LycanSpectre]

At the rate we are going, those people are all going to die anyway, between war, disease, pollution, and plain old human greed. However, you are right, there is no going back now. We are far beyond that point.

Loups_Garou has it about right; its all in conservation and awareness. The world would be in a lot better shape if humans had some respect for anything but themsleves. It could be as easy as making the roofs of buildings into gardens instead of leaving the bare concrete or shingles. Rather than covering everything in concrete and herbicide, why not just leave the trees as they are and build around them? Obviously you will have to remove some of them to make room for whatever you are building, but I think having a living tree support a house is a cool idea. You could use skylights and sprinklers to make sure it has everything it needs to survive. All Im saying is that we should stop treating nature like we are better. :shrug: Dont bite the hand that feeds you.

Anyway, to the origional topic: What ecological niche did humans fill in our early stages of development (as a race, not as individuals) and what niche do we fill now?

[Lone_Wolf]

No way in hell are humans part of nature... i just joined this site, but i've been looking over all the previous posts i can find and it seems like a cool place... anyway... there is a balance in place in nature, and we have completely defied that balance. Of course, because this system is the way it is, we're going to end up destroying ourselves anyway... or make peace with the environment... knowing humans, we'll all be dead in a few years... pray that we don't take nature with us... i could be wrong about all of this though, its happened before.

Also, it was said that we couldn't 'go back to nature'.

First, you're right that it wouldn't work... but for reasons that are completely bullshit.

Second, people starving? thats part of going back to nature. Life has and always will sustain itself on death, and humanity's population is too large

Hope i didn't offend to many people... just saying what i beleive. feel free to object

[Hellcat]

We breath, we eat, we reproduce. You will agree that all those aspects are 'OF' nature, thus we can probably all agree that we are 'OF' nature. Evolution is 'OF' nature (for those of us who believe in the concept). We are of nature- we have evolved as nature intended. Unfortunately we have evolved to well (or very badly- we need to know the meaning of life before this point can actually be decided). I can't say that we are not a part of nature. Every animal has its own ecological niche it fits into, and each animal has its own preditors to keep the population under control (we call it a food chain). We have forced our way to the top of the food chain and even though we don't generally eat animals such as wolves or crocodiles, we fill in the 'modern' niche that keeps these populations under control by killing them off for whatever we think is a good reason. Now nature has realised we are indeed over populated and thus she has thrown in some new preditors to keep our population down before we drive ourselves to extinction- our new preditors are diseases- cancer, AIDS, HIV. Nature isn't intent on killing us off as a species, she's trying to save us before we kill ourselves. We are like naughty children (yeah welcome back the good ol' child anolgy!). Children think they know it all, and there is nothing that mummy or daddy can teach them. Like children, we need showing that we can't rule the roost, at least not until we are old enough to understand the responsibilty- we, at present think that the human race is the be all and end all. Like someone mentioned, if the human race died out tomorrow, nature wouldn't notice. Nature would replenish her trees, take over the concrete that we've cast across her face, and bring back all that we took from her back into her. we are as natural as the next animal, because nature made us this way (for whatever stupid reason). Yeah we split the atom, which is unnatural- but why is it that nature made it possible for it to be split- probably to teach us a valid lesson. We want to be the god, but the only way we are ever gonna beat nature is by blowing her up. We are just kids trying to play grown-up, but still a part of nature- In our arrogance we believe we are outside nature.

[Xzengrim]

The biblical argument is an interesting one, to be sure. But I do notice something odd about it... It says that god said we were to be the masters of the beasts of the field, and be in charge of sea monsters and animals and such. Okay... animals fricking HATE us. They haven't exactly cooperated. Actually, the only way we could get the animals to do anything was to tie them to something heavy and beat them senseless.

That's my theory about dogs. Wolves are wolves because they don't take no crap from nobody! They're too strong. The weak and the dumb were domesticated; the proud and the independent remain true and grey! That's why you can't domesticate tigers. They don't put up with your shenanigans.

That, and I can't remember who said it now, but whoever it was that came up with the religious house-sitting analogy was pretty cool. Think then about aetheists: We burn your house down, kill your pets, eat all of your food... and then say that it was our house to begin with!

[Lone_Wolf]

We were born of nature, but now, because of self awareness and self thought, we are no longer one with nature. we could restore oursleves to be at harmony with nature, but nothing more with out removal of self awareness. Also, to make harmony with nature would require alot more than most of what i've heard suggested... we would have to go to a hunter-gatherer type thing. the majority of humanity would have to die, and we would have to be ok with that, and understand why it was neccesary. I think i'm going to go post something about the balance of nature so i can explain this in more detail...

[Were-E-Wolf]

'Are humans still part of nature', you ask. 'When were we not,' tis what I ask you.
In my opinion, what my eyes have seen, yes, we are still part of nature. Just because we have learned to build to our enviroment,to adapt, to survive. It does not mean that we are not still apart of nature.
We clam to have seperated, but we have not. Sure the bible says we are the masters of all things, but that is one peice of VERY persasive writing against a human mind. Yet we are not masters of the enviroment, we can only adapt to it. Nothing sperates us from the spirit of Gaia. I speak not of Her as any Were might, for I am only human, and a high schooler at that.
Lycan, you say nature no long holds the same sway over us as it used to. Is death not a part of nature. If we were truely not apart of nature, would we still die? If the single celled orginisums in which we called bateria and viruses, would we still get sick if we weren't part of nature?
You ask if such warning were nessicary if we were still a part of nature. She is merely telling us to not destroy her, which we are doing. She is warning us this way, instead of destroying us completely.
We have not left nature if you get into the science of it. Sure everything we make isn't, oh wait, yes it is. Until we split the atom, that was what all things are made of. The atoms are just combined to make something new, wether it be man-made or from nature.
Everything around us is made of the tiny things called atoms. You, me, the dog. The very key board you are typing on is made up of atoms, the very air you breath contains nitorgen and oxygen atoms, not to forget cabon and some others. EVERYTHING YOU SEE is made of atoms. Electrisity that flows into your computer and keeps your monitor on is made from electrons jumping from one atom to the next (I'm pretty sure that is what my Intro to Physics teacher said).
Going off of Xzengrim, if all the humans died off what would happen. Well I think Earth would be better off in some aspects. It still will hurt the balance of nature, but not as drasticaly as we have TRIED to change it.
We can still go back, not to living in family tribes and being covered in hair. But we can still reconnect with nature and flow with it. Instead of tring and rebel like the young teenagers we are (a subject I know all to well,) we need to keep in touch with our Mother. Gaia, the Earth, is our Mother. Us humans have trouble seeing the fact that she will feed and clothe us now and forever. We wish to be the masters of our own demize, we wish to control fate entirely along with our own Mother. Yet THAT is what can not be done.
Never will we be the tribes we once were. Yet still, in a world mixed with technology and nature, we have never left Her, and She will never leave us.
Gaia will let us keep our technology, it is how we use it that She worrys over. We need to make our technology work with Her instead of against Her. We must help, not hurt Her as we live the way we like. We can live in the conforts of the scientific age, just as we can live with Her and flow with the nature that IS Her.
I have sought out this subject, I have 'listened' to the wind which is Her voice. I hopefuly have gotten right what Gaia would want humans to do. I understand what we have to do. I only hope that I have helped you seek and understand more of what you should know.
Theses are the words of a child. Yet even though I am younger we all are children to her, and in which we are all equal. Listen to my words as you would to anybody your age, for in truth, we at heart, are all only teenagers.
Were E. Wolf

[Were-E-Wolf]

Sighs* Let me exsplain further. I am in no ways saying you HAVE to listen to me, but if you listen to what I say it may make you a better person in the long run just by hearing my words. And I never said you HAVE to fallow my advice. I wish to help them exsplore the posabilitys oflife, not just say, oh look, a tree, I bet wonderful God made it.
As for death... sure we try to cheat it... but... we die anyway.
As for Gaia, she feeds us... plants and animals that live on Earth that WE consume. If the aren't there the only way of living is through industy. She clothes us, where do you think clothes come from, the sky? Cotton and other fiberous plants. And I know She ISN"T human, She is what ever you make Her. It's just like people saying God made them in his image. They are making HIM sound human, when for all we know He could be a monkey, which we evolved from. But no, I don't belive in God, I don't listen to Him. Unless... Gaia IS Him... there for... She is human.
We are still part of the balance, everything in this world has a balance, we like to, shall we say, "tip" the scale.
Never (well I think never), did I say I WAS right. AND, never did I say YOU are right. It is all an opinion, a philosophy, which I, from a philosophers stand point, am sharing. Okay, so I said 'what you SHOULD know', in my last post, but hey, I know I'm only an ignorant 9th grader who's opinion does matter. Just like the opinion of a woman back in the early 1900's didn't matter, oh, and I am a woman bu the way. May I bring to your attention that when you say that animals and plants rest in the balance, humans do too, due to the fact that we are nothing more than animals on this rock.
Hold up, what's wrong with making Gaia sound human, it's called personification, or, giving animals or inanimate objects human feelings, for thoses that didn't pay attention in English class. Native Americans refured to her as their Mother. Not by the name of Gaia, but still.
If you have any replies to this I'd love to hear it Lone_Wolf. Keep it coming, boy. I will gladly spend what ever time I have to have a "friendly" debate. Why? Because debates help people learn where they stand and work on their philosphies, you may say somethign I'll agree with and I may say something you agree with. So.. I say, keep it coming... ;)

[LycanSpectre]

I wish to address several of your points Were-E-Wolf.

Death and Disease:
Through modern medicine we have rendered ourselves virtually immune to most diseases that would of decimated entire populations 200 years ago. Every day that passes, we get a little more impervious to disease.

Of course we would still die; its our heratige. Despite that we are so very far from bieng immortal, there are ways to put off death, and perhaps one day we will have developed our technology so much that death no longer effects us. With every generation that passes, humans learn to prolong life a little longer each time.

In addition, we have created micro-environments in our homes; we can control everything. Light, dark, water, heat, cold, inhabitants. Nature no longer forces us to be cold and hungry or warm and fat as she once did. Here too he sway is gone.

Nature's Warning

If I get cancer, its still a part of me, even though I dont want it be there. Ok. So if I get cancer should just ask it real nice to not kill me? Somehow I dont think that would work. But if someone else is attacking me, then a warning would be a better choice; warning yourself will likely have little effect.

Physics Lesson:

The topic here should be clarified; by nature I mean EARTH's nature, not the Universal nature. Our mere existence is testament that we are still a part of Universal nature.

Reconnecting with and Respecting Nature

In essence I agree with you. It is extremely unlikely that everyone will drop anything technological and go back to a hunter-gatherer existence tomarrow. In fact, I would say that there is no way in hell that is going to happen. I do think that it is possible to keep our technology (and even further it), while still bieng in-tune with nature as a species. It is just our lifestyle that needs to change.

I would have quoted you, but I was having problems posting a bunch of quotes with my responses. If you aren't sure what part(s) of your post I am adressing, let me know and I'll clarify.

[LGM]

The simple fact that humans presence affects surrounding ecosystems suggests to me that we are technically still a part of "nature".

We are just at the very top of the pile.

[LycanSpectre]

The simple fact that humans presence affects surrounding ecosystems suggests to me that we are technically still a part of "nature".

We are just at the very top of the pile.

It is true that we are on the top of the food chain. However, I have trouble accepting your first statement. What you are saying is that because we can effect something, we are a part of it. So, every time I turn on my TV, I become part of that TV. Or every time I talk to someone, I become a part of that person. That doesn't make sense to me. Just because you can interact with something does not make you a part of it.

[Lone_Wolf]

I did say i would stop the argument... but i figured i'd say something in response to Were. E Wolf's last statement... Sorry. I disagree with alot of things you are saying, but what you said at the end is defintiley true... sorry about being an asshole... it won't happen again

[DarkHunter]

Like the challenge to Memnoch the Devil to God in the Anne Rice novel.


I think we are still loosely tied with nature. But the more we try and sever ourselves from nature, the more Mother Nature will smile and screw with our weak Earth settlements. Chances are, if we ever find some consistent way to predict said natural disasters, they'll shift strangely. If we don't get in line like the rest of the living things with the world, Nature is gonna start throwing bigger and bigger disasters at us.

Technically, we weren't in the schematics of Nature. If a rogue asteroid hadn't decided to collide with Earth, reptillians would be ruling the world and they would have us in zoos.

We're a side path of nature, a slight bounce back from the catastrophe that took the great dinosaurs. My theory anyway.

[Were-E-Wolf]

I'll get to commenting to LycanSpectre in a bit. I haven't forgoten the fact that you have statements about what I said earlier. It's late and I accedently lost what I started on, so I'll save my replys for later. Instead I am going to comment on what Lone_Wolf said.
Look, no hard feelings okay? We all lose our temper from time to time. I may have sounded cool in my scond post, and I was, but I get mad too. You acted on impulse over my first post, it happens. And don't worry about being an ass over all this. Everyone makes an asshole out of them selves every once in a while, belive me, I've probably done it to, I just can't think of anything right now.
Here is a quote I would like people to remember on this forum, and I'll try and put it under good quotes later, 'I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' -- I'm pretty sure this was said by Voltaire, a philosophe that supported the right to free speach. All ways remember those words, it will get you far in debates.
Oh, by the way I agree with what you said about self-awareness and self-thought having to do with our out of blance in nature, Lone_Wolf. We are aware of ourselves only and not what is going on around us. Wether it be nature or just some other human in this world. I disagree with us needing to have it be removed completely to be back in the flow of nature. How ever, the coniquence of people dieing doesn't bother me. Couple billion less idiots in the world, which would help the gene pool consiterably. Oh, if you ever get the chance, put up the blance of nature thing like you wanted. I'd love to see it.
That's all the debating and philosophing (or what ever you want to call it,) I'll do tonight. G'night everyone, I'll parry and repost in the morning, (fencing lingo (or French,) for defending and making a counter-attack.)

[LycanSpectre]

Here is that Balance of nature thread Lone_wolf made:

http://www.werewolf.com/vb/showthread.php?p=334 62#post33462

[Ash]

But the more we try and sever ourselves from nature, the more Mother Nature will smile and screw with our weak Earth settlements.

Hmm, okay so say we reach a point where colonizing the moon or mars is feasible and we do in fact do it, what then? Will the earth stop 'attacking' or 'warning' us with illnesses and natural disasters or will our new planets follow the earth's lead and take us out because we dare to use technology and utilize natural resources in a wasteful but useful (to us anyway) way? Will we still be racked with cancer, earthquakes, etc? And if we are will it just be our earth evolved bodies reacting to the new alien environment or new 'punishment'?

[LGM]

QUOTE from LycanSpectre:

"It is true that we are on the top of the food chain. However, I have trouble accepting your first statement. What you are saying is that because we can effect something, we are a part of it. So, every time I turn on my TV, I become part of that TV. Or every time I talk to someone, I become a part of that person. That doesn't make sense to me. Just because you can interact with something does not make you a part of it."


I have absolutely no clue how you butchered my point and twisted into these illogical ramblings. In no way did I infer that "by affecting something, we are part of it", in that coarse and innaccurate manner.

I said, that by a technicality, since we effect the surrounding ecosystems, then we are a part of nature. I use no secret meanings here, just basic eco-biology.

Unless we hold the term "Nature" in very different definitions, I would assume that you recognise it as one of the following:

From Dictionary.com: (Definitions pertaining to different usages of the word have been removed)

na·ture:( P ) Pronunciation Key:(nchr)
n.

1.The material world and its phenomena.
2.The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
3.The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature.

-------

Whilst I have little doubt that 'definition three' suggests humans are still a part of nature, my original point was in fact directed by definition two.

Humans as a species do not live in isolation from the rest of the world. We live alongside nature (whether that is cooperatively or not is another debate.). We affect ecosystems around us, directly and indirectly. Effectively, we have grown to such a status that humans are one of the major "forces that produce and control the phenomena of the material world". This makes us a part of nature.

I reapeat, how you distinguished this was anything like me implying that "by turning on a TV, I become a part of it" is a mystery to me, and shows maybe that you posted without thinking about the question at hand. Like I said, I was merely quoting basic eco-biology that I learnt when I was back in school. Apologies for any miscommunication.

[LycanSpectre]

Well now, since it seems that I am too "illogical" for you I will explain my "illogical ramblings".

Definition 2, which you said is what your statement was refering to, implies Universal nature, which I have already addressed:

The topic here should be clarified; by nature I mean EARTH's nature, not the Universal nature. Our mere existence is testament that we are still a part of Universal nature.

Now in reference to Universal nature, I completly agree with you; we are a part of the Universe.

I personally am posing the origional question with the definition of nature bieng closest to your 3rd definition. A closer definition would be the spirit of Earth and biengs that exist for a purpose within nature. Thats what I mean.

Since you say that we are a part of nature because we effect ecosytems, fine, tell me this: what is our ecological niche? What is the purpose our entire species was meant for? Its not hard to see when an animal has one. I cannot think of a good example of what our niche is. Can you?

Fine, you didn't like my other examples, so I'll present you with another one: A meteor strikes the Earth. (Its been known to happen from time to time). It effects the ecosystems, and everything else. Is that meteor part of Earth's nature?

I maintain that just because we can effect something, that does not make it part of us, or us a part of it. An ecosystem is a "thing".

A page from your own book: Dictionary.com

thing
n.
1) An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.

2) The real or concrete substance of an entity.
3) An entity existing in space and time.
4) An inanimate object.
5) Something referred to by a word, a symbol, a sign, or an idea; a referent.

Ecosystems fit several of these definitons. Therefore, an Ecosystem is a thing. Just because we can effect a thing, does not make us a part of it. You implicitly agree with me there, in you rejection of my TV example.

Anyway, I also wanted to thank you for responding in a calm manner. :)

[LGM]

Well, in terms of the slight definition complication, I must apologise. It seems I was rather hasty in my reading of previous posts.

Still, on a lighter note, i still feel much of my reply is relevant and true to Earth Nature as well, although maybe a clear definition of what exactly Earth Nature comprises may be needed. I do still feel that humans have not yet left nature. However you measure it, humans still play an integral role in ecology. That much is not debatable.

What is our niche? Firstly, you assume there is a niche for any organism, save to survive and pass on our genes. If anyone here is looking for spiritual or religious "purposes", then they are searching in vain, as none will present themselves.

So, if we have the same purpose and motives as "nature", as well as sharing basic physical aspects, why must one question whether we are seperate from it? We are no less isolated from nature, than the Great White is from the ecologies of the oceans, are we? If so, in what ways? Is it our technologies? In which case, is the monkey using the stick excluded from natures club? So far I havent read anything in this topic that has suggested Humans have left nature, save for a lot of baseless attributing of "Earthquakes" as punishment for humans errors.

As for the meteor? I would not classify that as part of Earths Nature. I still fail to see any direct correlation between it and humans in relevance to this topic. One is a lump of rock, that whilst affecting ecologies, has not any sentient knowledge of its actions. It cannot choose the role it plays.

Humans however, do have sentient knowledge of nature. In fact, one of the only reasons we may stand apart is the fact that humans have the capacity to act either for or against nature, with purpose. No other species can purposely display mindless destructivism (Did I make that word up?).

You must understand, that with the beliefs (or lack of) that I carry, it is somewhat hard to lead such a debate as this. Maybe a better way would be for you to suggest reasons why we are seperate from nature, and I shall respond.

Of course, in essence this question is ambiguous, and unanswerable at best. As for replying in a calm manner, the day a man has to resort to mindless shouting, is the day is argument dies.

Beside, I risk no personal beliefs here. I tend to just take the opposite argument to the majority. :)

[LycanSpectre]

No need to apologise; it'd be a realy boring debate if everyone agreed. I'm gonna take some time to mull over your post before I respond to your points.

[Hellcat]

Interesting debate. Here's a few of my thoughts. Does a fox become a lesser part of nature when it comes into the city to feed and have litters under our sheds and out buildings? Do mice become a lesser part of nature when they step into our man-made buildings and make homes for themselves in the cavity walls? We call such animals vermin, because they persue us through our evolution and live (metaphorically speaking) under our tables. Do way say that they are no longer a part of nature because they have adapted to a man-made environment and used it to their own benefit? We call these animals pests- but if truth be told, they are intelligent creatures who, despite all odds (including persicution from man) they have found a way to fit in. So tell me, now fox has moved into the city and the mouse has moved into our homes (the latter is not a recent occurance, mice have followed humans since the prehistory), what is their ecological niche? Ok granted, not every individual of these species has chosen to feed amongst man, but when the world becomes a concrete face, these creature will have no choice but to feed with us or resort to extinction. We as humans have changed our environment, but the fact that other creatures have adapted to our changes suggests (to me at least) that we are still a part of nature as it is a part of us- yeah we do some really 'unnatural' things, but the fact that nature permitted it to happen, ie gave us hands and the intelligence to do the things we do says that we are as natural as the next animal who changes his habitat according to the food source, and the home space available by which to live and breed

[LycanSpectre]

There is this really old dude, who died in 1789, named Baron D'Holbach, who was having this very same debate. He took the stand that we are still a part of nature, and his "proof" was simply: To assert that we are apart from nature is arrgoence. He had no proof. (Dont think that because I said that my views have changed. An attack on character is the first sign of a losing argument). I take it that he assumes that people who think that humans are apart from nature view it as a good thing, and yes, if that be the case, I too would say that it was arrogence. However, I do not see it as a good thing. I would love it if Humans were a part of nature, but I cannot in good concince say that is so. :shrug: Just wanted to throw that out there.

Anyway, another dead (I think) dude named Kant said that it is our ability to reason and use logic that separates us from nature. Sartre said that it is our imagination that separates us. We can forsee multiple futrures, and choose action which will encourage the one we want. Obviously we cannot have all the futures we want; some things are impossible to forsee.

The meteor example was not meant to be related directly to humanity, just to demonstrate that just because you can effect or be effected by something, it does not make it a part of you.

An ecological niche is something a species does to maintain the natural balance of nature. The only balance we are maintaining is our own. We do not have a niche. As for the Foxes and mice, they are casualties. No they are not apart from nature, but they have adapted to their new (man-made) surroundings. They do what they always did in nature, except now they are doing it among human settlements. A predators niche is to control its prey's populatoin. Scavenger's niche is to clean up waste. A herbivore's niche is to keep plants healthy. Platnts niche is to provide food and air to the animals. I dotn see where we fit in.

LGM your points are valid and sound, I will not argue them.

In my eyes, Nature and Humans are two separate forces, each effect the other, but they are not the same.

[Hellcat]

We have the dental characteristics of an omnivore, this means that like the badger and the bear, our natural diet consists of both of plant and animal matter. Thus our generalised niche on this planet is to help control the population of certain animal types, and plant types. As I see it, we are an animal. What happens when you put an animal into a new environment? Lets take for example the European rabbit (O.cuniculus). It was introduced to England during the roman period. The Romans farmed the species for their fur and for meat. Some of these rabbits escaped captivity and adapted to the british habitat where they reproduced and quickly became a part of our British fauna. Naturally the balance of the british ecosytem will have been temporarily upset, but the balance was soon re-established when carnivourous animals such as the fox (V.vulpes) realised that rabbits were good to eat. Now in our modern ecosytsem the vast majority of our British Preditors diet is made up of rabbits. Another example is the American mink. This animal was also introduced into britain as a captive animal for the fur industry. Unfortunately for the british ecosystem the so called animal rights activists set hundreds of these animals loose in our british country side. An extra preditor in our midst that has a niche in its native countries, but in the UK the same niche is taken up by another species. Now what happens? If the niche of the two species are identical then the stronger species will survive and the weaker species will become extinct in this country. If the niche is only similar, then the most efficient species will survive, or both species will be able to co-exist (that's assuming that the Brits don't wipe out the American mink before it devastates our current ecosystem- apparently there is evidence that it is buggering up our ecosystem). This is exactly what has happened with man- with no natural preditor to keep our population under control we have become an over populated preditory species. Add to this the fact that we have spread across the planet like wild fire in the bush- ie we have inhabited lands that aren't native to our species over a period of thousands of years- it is inevitable that we have put pressure on some other creatures niche and either killed that other species off (unintentionally or otherwise) or learned to co-exist with those native species. Nature sees that the stronger, most adabtable species survives (or evolves). The weaker who can't cope with the pressure of change become extinct. Whether we like it or not, we have, along with rat, mice and foxes proved to be an adatable species. Not only are we capable of adapting to a new environment, we are capable of changing our environment and it is the latter that probably makes us one of the most adaptable creatures on this planet. No wonder the human race wants to think of itself as something above nature- it is purely arrogance. Like you I don't like some of the things we have achieved as a species- such as destruction of rain forests, extinction of plant and animal species. We stamp about like elephants in a corn field, we don't realise that some of the things we destroy can be avoided if we took the care. Unfortunately someone invented money and with it came greed. We have forgotton that we shouldn't take from nature more than what we need. In that respect I will agree that yes we have forgotton that we are animals, but we are still a part of nature. When we remember that we are not supposed to take from the mother more than we need to survive we will remember that we are another animal. At least some of our species are trying- recycling has been invented, people are trying to come up with new cars that are both efficient and environmentally friendly, we are trying to establish a balance between the human race and nature, but as long as many individuals believe that life revoves around money, the human race will never remember it is an animal until it is too late. Whatever happens we are still natural, we are merely blinded by our own megalomania and thus fail to see it.

[Xzengrim]

It could be argued that it is the fact that we are animals that makes humans destroy nature. We fight, and produce, and consume, but to what end? It is nearly always in the pursuit of basic animal needs. We need food. We need space, water, mates, tools, and territory. The only exception I can see is when we kill for religion. (Or for no reason at all, but I think you will agree that serial killers and psychopaths are defective minds, and work counter to natural means) WHere do you think all that trash came from? Most of it is food wrappers, I think. Okay, I'm generalizing now. But it seems that way to me.

[Frostbeard]

It's hard for me to explain this, but here's my view on things: I feel that humanity is not only a part of "Nature", we're also the ultimate expression of Earth-life's need to perpetuate itself. If anyone is going to make sure that some form of life from here is always around, it's humans.

That being said, I think we're in a very dangerous spot right now. We're in a state of heavy technological development, which I do feel is absolutely necessary. That development, however, is resulting in a lot of damage to the planet as a whole. We've wiped out a lot of species, and we've made some areas unsuitable for life of any kind. It's my belief, though, that eventually all of this development will result in Earth-life being given a much better chance of permanent survival.

As things stand right now, we're very vulnerable. One big rock hits Earth, and all life here could be extinguished. Technology is developing in such a way that we may see a way to prevent that kind of event from happening relatively soon. Further in the future, we'll be able to spread to other planets in our solar system, and eventually beyond.

It's the colonization of other worlds that makes us nature's right hand. By hurting the planet in the short term, we're working towards having MANY planets with part of Earth's life on them. Terraforming is already being thought of in practical ways rather than just science fiction.

I think that, as a species, we will eventually be Earth's reproductive system, if you're inclined to think of the planet itself as a life form. Continuing that analogy, Earth is going through puberty right now. We're fucking around with all of the systems here, but eventually, the planet will not only stabilize and mature, it will become capable of reproducing.

Kind of a strange thought, eh?