In a debate of global warming today with an environmental dipshit, something along the lines of "Human influence on the world is unnatural" were uttered. Humans are animals and sequentially a part of nature. So how can anything any human does possibly be considered unnatural. Can someone please explain this to me.
At 10/29/09 04:16 PM, GiantDouche wrote: Can someone please explain this to me.
No need for explaining, you're right, whoever said it is wrong.
However it's a common misconception that we are not animals. Figuratively, no, we are not, literally, yes, we are.
Everything you see is natural. If it occurs and can occur in the natural world, it's natural.
We'll I've never seen a steam engine pop out of a forest, so that by definition would be unnatural.
At 10/29/09 04:20 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: We'll I've never seen a steam engine pop out of a forest, so that by definition would be unnatural.
Are anthills unnatural? Ants make those. Humans make steam engines, so it's natural as well.
Human interaction with earth is un-natural in the sense that there has never been this kind of behaviour on earth before which is having apparent detrimental effects on the balance of the earth.
I for one don't give a shit. Humans are awesome.
At 10/29/09 04:22 PM, TheThirdSix wrote:At 10/29/09 04:20 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: We'll I've never seen a steam engine pop out of a forest, so that by definition would be unnatural.Are anthills unnatural? Ants make those. Humans make steam engines, so it's natural as well.
The very loose definition you're using, sure. But that's not the way the rest of the world sees it, hence the word "Synthetic" as in not naturally occurring.
At 10/29/09 04:23 PM, Diddy wrote: Human interaction with earth is un-natural in the sense that there has never been this kind of behaviour on earth before which is having apparent detrimental effects on the balance of the earth.
I'd say if polar bears die off because of something that humans contributed to well that's just Natural Selection and survival of the fittest at work. Cows release large amounts of methane. Volcanoes spew ungodly amounts of carbon dioxide into the air. Yet we don't seem to consider those as unnatural. If we're somehow harming the planet then the fucking planet wasn't meant to survive. Everything falls within a natural order.
At 10/29/09 04:16 PM, GiantDouche wrote: In a debate of global warming today with an environmental dipshit, something along the lines of "Human influence on the world is unnatural" were uttered.
Don't Call bill a dipship!
:Bill Is My Friend
The Saiyans are a true ham and cheese sandwich; don't underestomato.
At 10/29/09 04:33 PM, GiantDouche wrote:At 10/29/09 04:23 PM, Diddy wrote:
I'd say if polar bears die off because of something that humans contributed to well that's just Natural Selection and survival of the fittest at work.
No it isn't. Natural Selection is a slow process, the polar bears have no time to adapt at the rate humans are affecting the environment. So long as there is SOME ice left, evolutionary processes will not occur, especially at the speed of ice destruction through human works.
That's like saying if a human burns down a forest and none of the animals survive, that must be Natural Selection. It's ridiculous. You expect too much from nature and animals who aren't humans.
The way they said it was wrong, but I can kind of understand what they meant.
Humans are natural, we are carbon based life forms. Things we do by instinct, breathe, fart, blink, is natural, and is balanced in a delicate cycle by nature.
However, doing things that we weren't programmed to do could be considered unnatural. Discovery could be considered unnatural, but the instinct to want to know more isn't.
Obviously the person you were arguing was referring to global warming, so they probably should've just said "global warming is unnatural" instead of "human influence is unnatural". It's less potent but at least it's accurate.
At 10/29/09 04:33 PM, GiantDouche wrote: I'd say if polar bears die off because of something that humans contributed to well that's just Natural Selection and survival of the fittest at work. Cows release large amounts of methane. Volcanoes spew ungodly amounts of carbon dioxide into the air. Yet we don't seem to consider those as unnatural. If we're somehow harming the planet then the fucking planet wasn't meant to survive. Everything falls within a natural order.
Oh how fun hormonal teens can be.
The Buffalo almost went extinct, kind of hard for even the fittest to outrun a bullet. Cows are mass produced, their numbers would probably be much lower if we didn't breed them for food.
The planet will do just fine no matter what we do to it (aside from global nuking or something), environmentalists are a little more concerned with our longterm preservation, I don't think humanity would do quite as well in a waterworld.
We're not doing anything that violates the laws of physics, we're not even using resources from off the planet much less anything "unnatural". Yes, much of what we have is manufactured, synthetic, artificial, and not found in "nature" (which the envirofuckers define as "a world untouched my humans"), but we're still abiding by nature's laws, so I wouldn't call it "unnatural". Beavers make dams, bees and similar insects make hives, moles build burrows, and these are all "natural". We're just digging a bit deeper and doing a bit more of it.
At 10/29/09 04:52 PM, SoulMaster71 wrote: We're not doing anything that violates the laws of physics, we're not even using resources from off the planet much less anything "unnatural". Yes, much of what we have is manufactured, synthetic, artificial, and not found in "nature" (which the envirofuckers define as "a world untouched my humans"), but we're still abiding by nature's laws, so I wouldn't call it "unnatural". Beavers make dams, bees and similar insects make hives, moles build burrows, and these are all "natural". We're just digging a bit deeper and doing a bit more of it.
Pretty much the whole world defines anything manufactured, synthetic, artificial, and not found in "nature" as "unnatural" not to be confused with the word "bad".
Seriously, you're trying to argue with the dictionary over a word, you'd have to be brain-dead to think you can win that kind of argument.
At 10/29/09 04:47 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: The Buffalo almost went extinct, kind of hard for even the fittest to outrun a bullet. Cows are mass produced, their numbers would probably be much lower if we didn't breed them for food.
The planet will do just fine no matter what we do to it (aside from global nuking or something), environmentalists are a little more concerned with our longterm preservation, I don't think humanity would do quite as well in a waterworld.
You're not looking at this in the grand scale of things. Neanderthals created spears. Modern man created guns. If man can create tools to kill buffalo then man is superior to buffalo and buffalos were meant to eventually die off. The inherently violent nature of all animals will always prevent animals and man from coexisting. Give it the right amount of time and there won't be half the animals that are present today because cloned meat and animal products will be readily available. But why is that necessarily a bad thing.
At 10/29/09 04:20 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: We'll I've never seen a steam engine pop out of a forest, so that by definition would be unnatural.
Everything in that steam engine comes almost directly from nature. A hut can't suddenly be flying out of a forest, yet it is built out of natural materials.
You are saying that complex machines can not be natural.
At 10/29/09 04:16 PM, GiantDouche wrote: In a debate of global warming today with an environmental dipshit, something along the lines of "Human influence on the world is unnatural" were uttered. Humans are animals and sequentially a part of nature. So how can anything any human does possibly be considered unnatural. Can someone please explain this to me.
He probably meant the industrialization and our current lifestyle are very different from the past and from other animals.
The sig that I'm wearin? Awesomely made by Skaren!
Also, I like annoying Americans by calling English football "real football" and American football "rugby".-Lost-Chances
At 10/29/09 05:02 PM, GiantDouche wrote: You're not looking at this in the grand scale of things. Neanderthals created spears. Modern man created guns. If man can create tools to kill buffalo then man is superior to buffalo and buffalos were meant to eventually die off. The inherently violent nature of all animals will always prevent animals and man from coexisting. Give it the right amount of time and there won't be half the animals that are present today because cloned meat and animal products will be readily available. But why is that necessarily a bad thing.
I'd say humans are more violent than animals, not to mention we're much more efficient. Also, in the "grand scale of things" it's much safer to preserve all these lifeforms until we actually develop a way to mass produce cloned animals because I think the scientists are going to have a difficult time thinking after they've been starved on the account of no more animals to eat and all the vegetation being under twenty miles of water or ice (depending on global warming or cooling coming first).
Besides, I prefer my leopard rugs made from real hide, the cloned stuff just doesn't give me the same warm feeling deep inside.
At 10/29/09 05:04 PM, AwesomeX wrote:At 10/29/09 04:20 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: We'll I've never seen a steam engine pop out of a forest, so that by definition would be unnatural.Everything in that steam engine comes almost directly from nature. A hut can't suddenly be flying out of a forest, yet it is built out of natural materials.
You are saying that complex machines can not be natural.
That's exactly what I'm saying, and yes a hut can suddenly fly out of a forest, huts can fly you know.
Anything can fly with enough explosives packed under it.
At 10/29/09 04:22 PM, TheThirdSix wrote:At 10/29/09 04:20 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: We'll I've never seen a steam engine pop out of a forest, so that by definition would be unnatural.Are anthills unnatural? Ants make those. Humans make steam engines, so it's natural as well.
welllll if you think about it.. an ant hill is just dirt(natural) that was moved. while humans build forge and create these steam engines, they have purpose, and most of all it was intended for something. An ant hill on the other hand was not intended to perform any function, its merely a result of burrowing underground.. so i think youve been.. for lack of a better term pwnd
Everything is energy.. dont steal mine:P
I agree who ever said that is wrong. People consider the mounds made my termites to be natural, so why not brick houses?
Or gays. :P
BLITZ MY CHAKRAS.
To be clear, humans are indeed natural, but that does not mean that are influene is natural. if you look in nature, everything has a way of balancing itself out. Even animals poop serves a purpose:P but humans do not fit in to this general rule humans for some reason(capacity to think?) cant leave well enough alone.. and so, force ideas upon nature which are quite unnatural and cause drastic changes in nature. Global warming would be an example of an unnatural influence and the melting of the polar ice caps that will kill our great grand children is the unnartural and serious response given back by nature.
Everything is energy.. dont steal mine:P
At 10/29/09 05:15 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: I think the scientists are going to have a difficult time thinking after they've been starved on the account of no more animals to eat and all the vegetation being under twenty miles of water or ice (depending on global warming or cooling coming first).
By the time global climate changes have a significant impact we'll all be long dead. And there will probably be some sort of machine that can regulate carbon dioxide levels. I mean there's already a device that can manipulate the weather and technology has nowhere to go but up.
Besides, I prefer my leopard rugs made from real hide, the cloned stuff just doesn't give me the same warm feeling deep inside.
Yeah yeah. Animals good people bad.
At 10/29/09 05:34 PM, AJB0 wrote: To be clear, humans are indeed natural, but that does not mean that are influene is natural. if you look in nature, everything has a way of balancing itself out. Even animals poop serves a purpose:P but humans do not fit in to this general rule humans for some reason(capacity to think?) cant leave well enough alone.. and so, force ideas upon nature which are quite unnatural and cause drastic changes in nature. Global warming would be an example of an unnatural influence and the melting of the polar ice caps that will kill our great grand children is the unnartural and serious response given back by nature.
Nature will take care of us when our actions get out of hand. Like you said, the world corrects itself and is amazing at recycling.
The sig that I'm wearin? Awesomely made by Skaren!
Also, I like annoying Americans by calling English football "real football" and American football "rugby".-Lost-Chances
Another thing I'd like to ask your divine wisdom on oh great GiantDouche, if you consider everything man creates to be natural, what about ideas? Genocide for example. Going on a which hunt for people whom I can't tell the separate from everybody else besides a big nose and a tiny pecker, would that be natural?
What about religion, that must be natural too.
What about breast implants, can you claim a woman has natural breasts when there's a big pouch of silicon in there?
If human actions regarding the environment are unnatural, then our actions to preserve animals and the environment must also be considered unnatural. We keep many species from extinction unnaturally and will keep the animals we need to survive unnaturally and unnaturally preserve the parts of the environment and ecosystem that we need.
So, many animals are surviving unnaturally because of humans, many of whom depend on unnatural means to survive.
At 10/29/09 05:41 PM, GiantDouche wrote: By the time global climate changes have a significant impact we'll all be long dead. And there will probably be some sort of machine that can regulate carbon dioxide levels. I mean there's already a device that can manipulate the weather and technology has nowhere to go but up.
But mankind will still be around, and there are no guarantees that such a machine will be made in time, and even if it is viable it'll be after any climate change. And you need to stop watching G.I Joe.
Yeah yeah. Animals good people bad.
I'm content with being a bad boy. :3
At 10/29/09 05:56 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: But mankind will still be around, and there are no guarantees that such a machine will be made in time, and even if it is viable it'll be after any climate change. And you need to stop watching G.I Joe.
Don't forget there's also no guarantee that mankind won't be able to adapt to environmental changes.
Well, the person you're debating is worng, for most values of "nature" (however, the defintion of "culture" is often said to be everything in the world that isn't naturally crafted".) Nature is a loaded word, and a loaded consept. Yes, technically everything people do is natural. THis however, doesn't mean it's good.
A Swarm of locust eating all the leaves in an area? A natural occurance. however, it does devastate the area. But new plants grow in stead.
However, the propbllem with mankind is, that we consume faster than we replace what we consume. This is something that can happen with a population of an animal (say, a deer in an area without predators). The population grows, and uses up resources fast, until it hits the point where the resources run out. At this point, the population starts catastrophically dwindling, until it hits manageable levels again.
At 10/29/09 06:00 PM, Snake-Arsenic wrote:At 10/29/09 05:56 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: But mankind will still be around, and there are no guarantees that such a machine will be made in time, and even if it is viable it'll be after any climate change. And you need to stop watching G.I Joe.Don't forget there's also no guarantee that mankind won't be able to adapt to environmental changes.
There's never a guarantee that a game of Russian roulette ends in death, but play it enough times and it will. Best to play it safe and put the gun down, but since that's not even an option it's best to check the chamber before pulling the trigger.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
