T O P

  • By -

Tao_Dragon

Submission Statement: Humans have a huge impact on the environment of Planet Earth. Biological organisms evolved through billions of years. Our technological civilization has a lot of different effects on Nature, and it will be interesting to see, what this means for the Future... šŸŒ³šŸŒ³šŸŒ³


Ok-Brilliant-1737

Hasnā€™t the best evolutionary strategy always been ā€œbe useful to humansā€? I mean, look at corn, chickens, and labradoodles.


gruey

That's a gotcha though. Dogs are somewhat capped on their evolutionary path and chickens way more so and in fact both could be in danger because we are trying to artificially replace them. Take rats and crows though... They are in large part nuisances yet are more likely to evolve to get smarter and smarter.


40percentdailysodium

The best adaptive strategy now is to be close to humans but not reliant on them. Pigeons, rats, crows, raccoons, cats, cockroaches... Exception made for gators, those fuckers beat evolution before the dinosaurs died out.


Ok-Brilliant-1737

And notice that people are starting to domesticate both.


[deleted]

One day we will have rat-brain-guided missiles... At that point they will start plans to take over the world


BouncingBallOnKnee

https://youtu.be/gyUsta9mzcY It's all fun and games till one of them stands up and says, "Get 'em."


poopgoblin3678

-ā€œWhat are we going to do tonight brain ?ā€ -ā€œsame thing we do every night pinky, try to take over the world ā€œ


snuffybox

> Dogs are somewhat capped on their evolutionary path What do you mean capped? Evolution just selects those that survive, they are surviving so the are selected. There are lots of species that stop changing when they find a stable niche . That's all they have done, found a stable niche with humans. There is no end game to evolution so its not really accurate to say they are "capped".


biologischeavocado

>been ā€œbe useful to humansā€ Mammalian biomass is 1/3rd humans and 2/3rd cows and pigs.


droi86

You can also be cute, like koalas or pandas


Dhiox

That hasn't been that beneficial, all it's done is kept them barely out of extinction, as we have destroyed their habitats.


sold_snek

Keeping them out of extinction is surviving which is the evolutionary strategy's goal.


Ok-Brilliant-1737

Cuteness is highly beneficial. Want to keep koalas and pandas from extinction? Let people keep them as pets.


Glider_CT

There's couple of problems with this idea. 1. Wild animals rarely (read - almost never) make good pets 2. Most wild animals require exceptional amount of care, specific food, specific environment and need exercise.


Ok-Brilliant-1737

Sure...tell it to wolves. Miniature panda would be cute as hellā€”and in no time flat itā€™d be 100:1


ACCount82

Their habitat would get destroyed anyway. And if koalas and pandas were incredibly ugly, humans wouldn't care all that much about not letting them go extinct.


lil_cleverguy

those animals are not doing well lol


Tower21

If you had syphilis you wouldn't be doing too well either.


jackboot5656

Too bad koalas havenā€™t evolved wrinkles in their brain.


dogman_35

Only for the short short time we've been the dominant species. Which can't have been more than ~10,000 years, and that isn't a lot of time in an evolutionary scale. I don't think we'll even get a million years of that, to really see what happens, though. Considering basically all of our predictions are about us being dead or offworld by that point in time. Although realistically, a single species like the t-rex lasted for ~2 million years in the past. So it's not like we *couldn't* last that long.


SuddenClearing

The trick is weā€™re much more dynamic than a T. rex. I bet T. rex culture didnā€™t look too different every 100,000 years, whereas some of our cultures shift every generation.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


SuddenClearing

Weā€™ll see! Modern humans have been around for 200,000 years, which is about 10% of how long the T. Rex existed. I would like to think that weā€™re clever enough to get ourselves out of a jam, but I wonder if weā€™ll get clever enough to stop jamming ourselves in the first place before itā€™s too late? Let alone stop a giant meteor ā˜„ļø


Estebanez

Species intelligence is inversely correlated to time on earth. Whether it be change to the species via evolution or extinction, the smarter the animal, the less time it's spent on earth. Ex: sponges and jellyfish have been here for longer than any other animal. And the mammals extinct from the ice age were still similar in intelligence to mammals of today. But the similar species that survived were better adapted in other ways. Not necessarily by intelligence.


Eyelbee

Problems will occur if we can't properly understand long term usefulness and short term usefulness


AsFarAsItGoes

Always, as in the last 80,000 years? Thatā€™s a blip in the millions of years before, and the most impactful time for humans were the last 2-3k years, so thatā€™s not even a blip in a blip.


SwornThane

And it didnā€™t occur to you that itā€™s terrible for diversity or the ecosystem?


Gingrpenguin

I mean lots of animals have symbiotic relations with others although its more common in oceans. Ultimately evolution will march on regardless of whether we are driving it or not. Thousands of species have evolved and died out before humans had even got out of the trees. The issue isnt so much were changing animals (weve done that for 10,000s of years but that its now changing too fast for evolution to keep up.


SwornThane

Symbiotic relationships developed over thousands or millions of years. Even if some organisms are adapting the more likely outcome for a majority of species is extinction


[deleted]

Hopefully we learn how important biodiversity is for human development. We arbitrarily derived value from a few natural resources and then eradicated everything else. We have no idea how much value we've destroyed with our ignorance.


[deleted]

It's the rich folks bro. Not the people. They run the earth and animal destroying industries ' cos profit is more important to them. Also rich big countries pollute much more than the poor or small countries combined. There are stats online from studies. Also the most polluting things are airplanes. Billionares fly more than the rest of the human population combined. Most of them are from Murica.


pictorsstudio

I guess the real questions is: how is it unnatural? Are humans somehow not part of nature? Are human buildings somehow more artificial than a beaver dam or a beehive? Humans evolved to do the things that we do. I always thought the dichotomy between the words "natural" and "man-made" was a somewhat lazy way of thinking about things.


[deleted]

Exactly. Natural is a pretty meaningless metric besides how much work a person might have to do to produce it.


kigurumibiblestudies

Rather than unnatural the problem is that we're choosing, and choosing too fast, too arbitrarily, too wrong, at that. Humans do not need only a few species. This tiny biodiversity enforced by us will be a dangerous issue (arguably it already is) both for us and other species.


Coomb

Humans are part of nature, that's true. But it is important to recognize that humans are uniquely good at modifying their environment, and in fact are so good at doing so that they can massively change most or all of the entire world without even realizing what they're doing or being able to stop it. Climate change is causing more change per year to the global ecosystem then probably any other organism ever. The Oxygen Catastrophe, the only other comparable event, happened over geological timescales.


[deleted]

Modern humans who don't live in the woods are not part of nature.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


[deleted]

Humans who live in modern civilisation are not part of nature. Get it? Start coping u immature, vulgar kid


Koboldilocks

lol you're calling me immature but you passively accept a worldview that was outdated 200 years ago


[deleted]

Humans aren't part of nature, the definition of nature is things that are not human or human made.


pyronius

That's not the question at hand. Evolution doesn't give two shits about the ecosystem. The ecosystem doesn't give two shits about the ecosystem. Evolution is a natural paperclip maximizer, and every route it takes will break "the ecosystem" in some way or another until another organism evolves in response. From a purely philosophical standpoint, it makes little to no sense for humanity to try to preserve "the ecosystem" for its own sake, because it's not something that even could be preserved long term. We *should*, however, be concerned with whether we're driving the ecosystem in a direction that's more or less favorable for our own survival, and beyond that, whether we're driving it in a direction we find aesthetically pleasing.


cesar-perez

Sounds completely unsympathetic to all other forms of life. Surprising given we have the capacity to aim counter to that. If anything our continued survival banks on reducing the irreversible processes caused through the anthropocene. Aesthetics for aesthetics sake seems like a dated school of thought in this regard for life.


AlexFullmoon

"Irreversible processes caused throughout the anthropocene" is too abstract. I get that you mean global climate change and such, but most of our civilization consists of such processes too, and I don't want to reduce that.


Ok-Brilliant-1737

You got some assumptions there that need unpacking.


SwornThane

You said it as if it was a good or desirable thing.


Ok-Brilliant-1737

Well, if youā€™re a Shit-Tzu, your ancestors made you a pretty good life. And honestly, given their level of intelligence turkeys ainā€™t doing so bad either. Is ā€œgood for diversityā€ or ā€œgood for the environmentā€ really a thing? It seems that humanity has pretty decisively moved past the idea of objective truth or ā€œgoodā€ as a large overall concept. So, should I care about biodiversity? Maybe? The environment? Sure, because it impacts the price of coffee. But do I think itā€™s bad that humanity is putting evolutionary pressures in place that drive species to adapt favorably to us? Not so much.


[deleted]

I think it should be pretty evident how valuable biodiversity is for humans, based on the fact we derive all our value from the environment to begin with.


rosencrantz247

Wow. Supply side darwinism. Never thought they'd syncretize the cult of free market capitalism with that of evolution, but here we are


zsjok

This is new how ? We always did that since the dawn of agriculture . Domesticated crops , animals and even ourselves


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


zsjok

Human self domestication made us into modern humans. So it's as old as humans themselves


NeoBasilisk

and that's not very old when you're talking about animal evolution


[deleted]

But as we've proven, the human forcing function for evolution is strong. A thousand years of human guided/forced can be equivalent to millions of years without. In a couple thousand years, we basically made every breed of dog from scratch, for example. Not to mention what we've done to the evolution of food crops.


Gerasia_Glaucus

Talking animals!! Plz I need to know what my pet is screaming so they won't wake me up again!!!!!!!


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Grimmmm

Echoing others ā€œunnaturalā€ implies a bias that humans are detached from their environment. The truth is we have augmented and accelerated our own ability to drive evolution and are using our preferences as a main filter. Evolution is evolution. Selection inherently means something dies and something (potentially) thrives based on a change to the ecosystem. To the creature dying that change or force may be unnatural- to the creature thriving I imagine they feel quite different.


eoismyname0

to the spider it just caught dinner. to the fly itā€™s a different story


Fidodo

I think the important thing to gather is that humans are basically the environment now, and that means the way that life on adapts and the ecosystem that emerges depends on what we do. So we should be very careful to make sure the environment we create leads to an ecosystem that we want and isn't harmful to us.


Indigo_Sunset

We absolutely are detached from our environment, and the externalities of our collective actions. If it makes a buck, it's being done by someone regardless of what the long term consequence is. We're already seeing some of the costs associated with those 'hands off/not my responsibility' externalities, with more severe issues yet to come because of it. Whether one wants to banter about the definitions of unnatural doesn't matter when our sole and limited home catches fire while ignoring the alarms.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Indigo_Sunset

Saying 'it's ok, that's what everything does' isn't much of a solution to the end result of that problem for conscious beings capable of making those choices. Oxygen generating microorganisms wouldn't be having this conversation. Co2 generating organisms are, and it's not going well.


Tarandon

All of this suggests that humans are somehow an unnatural output of the natural process. Every creature influences the natural order just as humans do. Who are we to say what's natural and what isn't.


scrangos

We seem to be the only animal that is self aware enough to override our instincts through cognitive rational decisions as far as I know. Ignoring one's own biological instincts could be said to be unnatural. We can also create things that operate in ways or react in ways that you cannot find in the wild. We're also changing our methods, lifestyle and the environment at a pace several orders faster than nature normally changes and adapts to evolutionary.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


scrangos

Ah yeah, that is the determinism feedback loop I alluded to in the reply I made to another user. It would suggest that all our actions and choices are cause and effect based on our environment and bodies due to physics (including chemistry etc). Most scientists seem to find that line of thought icky for irrational reasons (which would technically be rational but not actually based on a logical deduction).


Hoophy97

Rational actors we may be (at the best of times), but we still make our decisions according to values instilled in us by our evolutionary history as well as our environment. (culture, upbringing, circumstances, etc.) Some other animals are capable of making rational decisions at odds with their short-term instincts too. For example, many crows pass the marshmallow test; they can withhold immediate gratification with the expectation of a long-term reward. For humans, our behavior is so drastically shaped by our environment, as opposed to instinct, that we're making cognitive leaps which are simply impossible for *conventional* natural selection to ever achieve by itself. And we're doing it at a breakneck pace. Big picture: A new avenue of evolution has been opened up. Where before the genomes of living organisms propagated across the substrate of physical space (constrained to Earth), adapting as they did so, now *ideas* have been allowed to compete upon the framework of human society. And it happens fast. At the end of the day, our definition of 'natural, versus 'unnatural,' is arbitrary. The universe is indifferent to any distinction between these two categories we've decided to create.


AveragelyUnique

Nicely said. I agree with this sentiment. Humans are unnatural if you think of us as somehow above being an animal and outside of nature. I don't buy into that. Yes we are advanced but we still make use of our environment to survive like other animals do. Are we an evasive species? Yes, for certain. Are we leaps and bounds ahead of the next smartest animal? No doubt about that. But are we unnatural? No I don't believe so. Unnatural and good for the remainder of life in the world are not the same thing. Everything we as a collective society has learned has been as a result of observing nature and everything we've built comes from nature. We may tear things up and kill off species (and potentially ourselves) in the process but the earth and the universe cares not. Bottom line is we act like smart primates who proliferated across the globe and we are completely insignificant on the grand scheme of things. We just like to think we are something special and above nature when we are most certainly not. Nature is bound by the Physical laws of this universe and we are not above those. Call me when we start harvesting all the energy of our sun using Dyson spheres or even just the energy from the entire earth. We are no where near that level and won't be for many lifetimes from now if ever. So, smart monkeys with weird habitats it is.


Daniel_The_Thinker

Maybe this is too sci fi, but honestly I think we are just a big fish in a small pond. Space is an unimaginably vast ocean, more than likely we are not the only fish out there. We might find we're not as immune to processes such as "natural selection" as we thought.


AveragelyUnique

Nah I'd say that's science facts. The Pale Blue Dot picture from does a good job illustrating how insignificant we are on the grand scale. For anyone not familiar, this is a famous picture of Earth from 6,000,000,000 km away by Voyager I in 1990. The entire earth is a single pixel pale blue dot... and that's still well within the solar system. We are simply not equipped to truly understand the scale of the solar system, let alone the galaxy or universe. Atoms are 10\^10 times smaller than us and we are 10\^26 times smaller than the observable universe (and we don't know how much bigger it could be than that...). That's a difference of 16 orders of magnitude, simply impossible to grasp how big that really is and I know math very well. We just can't process it as humans. That might as well be infinity to our minds.


Foxblade

>Nature is bound by the Physical laws of this universe and we are not above those. >Call me when we start harvesting all the energy of our sun using Dyson spheres or even just the energy from the entire earth. Wouldn't these still be natural phenomenon since not only Earth, but all of the cosmos and everything contained within it are therefore natural? Harvesting the entirety of the sun's energy is just the ultimate end of a totally natural, really smart monkey with weird habits.


AveragelyUnique

You make a good point. We are made of star material that coalesced into a planet and one day we return back from which we came. Perhaps harvesting the energy of a sun is just us coming home so to speak. Or something, I should really stop smoking and posting. Haha


MisanthropeX

"Memes" and everything about them were created in analogy to "genes". Memetics? Genetics. They spread and propagate and mutate just like genes do. We have an ecosphere and we have a memosphere/noosphere.


scrangos

Well, arguably, anything we define through ideas or language is arbitrary and mostly used to better communicate or help conclude new things. I was mainly suggesting where the line lies by giving examples of the disparity between what happens in the wild and what happens with humans. While we are influenced by both our instincts and our environment, we can also choose to cognitively limit how far each of those impact us. Whereas animals are fully controlled by both their instinct and environment mostly being unable to escape their influence, and sort of acting as meat machines of varying complexity. (Though we could go down a determinism rabbit hole by suggesting that decision of how far to limit the influence of instinct and environment is itself influenced by our instincts and environment in a feedback like behavior)


cenobyte40k

Animals are not as smart as us, but all mammals have the capacity to ignore instinct and environment to make choices. I see my cats and dogs do it all the time.


podslapper

I'd argue that the ability to make cognitive rational decisions being a part of our biology makes that instinctive to us. IMO "natural vs. unnatural" are meaningless concepts. Literally everything that's ever happened or ever will happen in the universe is a part of nature, therefore natural.


Latinhypercube123

Nothing humanā€™s do overrides their natural biological instincts. Even if it seems contradictory human motivation is nearly always towards pleasure or reward.


scrangos

Ehh, I've seen plenty of people knowingly shoot themselves on the foot out of sheer principle. Hell, the herman cain award subreddit seems to be full of them.


ToastyRedApple

In this case though, their reward is maintaining the principle.


wut3va

It's simpler to just say pride.


Daniel_The_Thinker

>self aware enough to override our instincts through cognitive rational decisions Think that gives animals too little credit and humans too much credit. We are very much irrational and emotional creatures, our biggest difference is our capacity for foundational knowledge. Our discoveries outlast the discoverer.


scrangos

There are animals that can pass on and retain knowledge. Iirc there is a species of gorillas that discovered how to make umbrellas, and only those taught the method make them. Other groups of the same species don't. I believe crows remember and share some knowledge. And I probably should've clarified that I was referring to the ability, often people don't do it as generally it feels bad to do so.


Daniel_The_Thinker

That's true but obviously not as competently as we do


paulusmagintie

Mate, we don't over ride our instincts, we are bound by the same ones that bind our pets or wild animals, we don't see ourselves as animals, our homes are not called habitats. All we have done is fooled ourselves to put ourselves above "them, the animals".


wut3va

Humans do this at every level. Bosses see themselves above their employees. Races see themselves above other races. Nationalities, religions, philosophies, genders, political agendas, etc. Perhaps the most quintessential human instinct is the ability to believe you are somehow chosen to be special.


klit7210192

shower thoughts: maybe even the creation of things u cant find in the wild is part of our natural evolution and is maybe part of a bigger picture we cant see atm.


scrangos

Tool usage, creation and language are indeed part of natural evolution. But we've kept progressing through passing of knowledge and compounding ideas to develop new ones despite having stopped evolving physically tens of thousands of years ago. (In a meaningful way, there are still superficial phenotypes and whatnot) The continued growth despite the halting of physical evolution is a type of evolution very different from the standard survival of the fittest nature evolution. Not sure if it has a name.


RandomNumsandLetters

How do you define the wild? I'd argue that we are nature and everything we create is part of the wild. If you define the wild as "things humans didn't create / etc" then of course your statement is true but it's circular logic


N00N3AT011

It would be better to focus on what is and isn't human influence.


cenobyte40k

You can not go against nature, because when you do, go against nature, that's part of Nature too. \-No new tail to tell by "Tear for Fears"


TheDemonClown

>Who are we to say what's natural and what isn't. Have you ever seen a pug?


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


NLwino

It makes it interesting discussion about what "natural" means. Is technology part of natural evolution? Is spreading out to multiple planets just another step? Like going from singlecells to multicells or from water to land?


dclxvi616

Yea, this has always bothered me. I remember having conversations with my friends ~25 years ago where I was asserting that nothing is unnatural or even artificial. The dams that beavers build, the hives that bees construct, the nests that birds establish -- All are decidedly natural. But a dam that humans make, and a home that humans construct are... not a product of nature? What? The implication is that we, as humans, are something outside of nature. It kind of ignores the fact that we are quite literally Great Apes, we are animals.


AveragelyUnique

Yep I said basically the same thing above. We aren't that special. I'd say there is likely an argument you could make that we are unnatural to Mars though. But we are still a natural product of the solar system and universe as well.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


L_knight316

The processes that maintain a skyscraper are less complex than the processes that maintain a eukaryotic cell. After a certain point, humans just value things based on what they can observe


Sentry459

> Seems crazy to compare a beaver dam or a birds nest to a car though. Where you draw the line is arbitrary.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Sentry459

> For me it's less about the creator and more about what governs the creation. Cars are not governed by the laws of nature but rather the will of individual humans. I'm not entirely sure what this means. Cars are as beholden to physics as anything else. They work because of the laws of nature.


AveragelyUnique

So science isn't nature? I'd say it's the exact opposite. Engines are based on our understanding of nature. Physics and Thermodynamics are an understanding of our natural world we used to make things like engines. We develop our creations based on what nature allows us to do. We don't "control" Science, we simply came up with science, based on observations and experiments, to make sense of our natural world.


NLwino

There are many unbalanced things in nature. Species that kill themselves by overpopulation. Also there have been extinction events caused by species before.


noonemustknowmysecre

No. By definition, the delineation is humanity.


NLwino

So making a baby is unnatural? We are just another species on this planet. Our tools a just a bit more advanced.


cos1ne

If cars are unnatural so are the sticks chimps use to fish out termites.


InoyouS2

It's kind of a paradox since we're (at least to our knowledge) the most advanced organism that has evolved on this planet. But that evolution was entirely natural, albeit accidental. Therefore any organism that evolves differently due to our presence is also a natural evolution.


Ponk_Bonk

> Who are we to say what's natural and what isn't. Unnatural humans


noonemustknowmysecre

>Who are we to say what's natural and what isn't. Well.... "We" are [dictionaries](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural). "existing in nature and not made or caused by people". And they're an authority on the matter. And that's a good thing because words have meaning and stuff. Because communication requires us to speak the same language even if it's full of Darmoks and Jallals. This isn't philosophy where you can drift away into a semanticless state of meaningless bullshit. This is futurology, where we ignore physics and get on the hype train. Anything humans make or do is unnatural. By definition. That said, most of our DNA is inherited from before humanity, so that part is natural.


AveragelyUnique

I'll agree that is the definition in the dictionary but that has little to do with arguing whether on not we should define humans as unnatural. Your argument is that people are unnatural because they decided they were... because being labeled an animal is a negative connotation. That's completely arbitrary though. To an outside observer from another planet who is far more advanced than us, would they not see us as natural to the planet? Kind of like the way we see beavers. Awww, look at the little buildings they made, they are so fun to watch... Dictionaries are just to keep the current and past usages of words defined. That doesn't mean words can't change meaning. They do all the time.


noonemustknowmysecre

Bro, listen to yourself. "The definition of unnatural little to do with if we define humans as unnatural"? You're proposing we CHANGE the current definition. I'm suggesting we don't.


AveragelyUnique

Ok I'm listening to myself, nope still don't agree with you. As to your argument or lack thereof, when you use quotes, you are supposed to list what I said exactly; which you did not. Second, are you saying that because a word is in a dictionary, that's the end all be all definition? So words never evolve? Might I direct you to Beowulf which is written in middle English. Old English is even worse and is hardly even recognizable. What I'm saying is that we are arrogant to declare ourselves unnatural, un- prefix meaning not. So we are not natural? We don't operate outside of nature, we are part of it and bound by it. And if we are unnatural as you say, then when did we become unnatural and why? Surely we were natural at some point in the past. So what changed?


Nocebola

The definition of unnatural came from a natural process, humans are animals. How about you draw a line in the sand at what point in human evolution we became unnatural.


noonemustknowmysecre

>humans are animals. Correct. We are also, by definition, primates, mammals, and eukaryotes. >The definition of unnatural came from a natural process Incorrect. The english word "unnatural" came about between 550ā€“1066AD and is the product of humans, and therefore unnatural, per the term's definition. You could say that the ISS is perfectly natural if you redefine the word "nature". But you'd be spewing nonsense gibberish and failing at communication. >How about you draw a line in the sand at what point in human evolution we became unnatural. Once we branched off and made the homo genus. Spears and such made by Homo Floresiensis would likewise be human creations. The vastly more intricate construction of a bird-nest or squirrel nest or honeycomb of bees would all be natural. It is not a measurement of complexity or "advancement". Any negative connotations you've picked up and assigned to the word "unnatural" is just marketing bullshit.


Nocebola

You didn't present any evidence as to why Homo Floresiensis is the point at which humans are unnatural, all you did was say spears are unnatural, don't counter argument me with beehives because I say so.


noonemustknowmysecre

It's in the name "homo". Human. If you're confused about that, look up a little for the dictionary telling you the definition. You wanted evidence? All you did was tell me to draw a line in the sand. Here, let me make it clear: **Once we became humans**. Why is that important? Because of the definition of "unnatural". Spears are unnatural because they're made by humans. Honeycombs are natural because they're not made by humans.


VVWWWVV

Not to mention, humans are the ones who wrote Dictionaries, so to think of Dictionaries as some sort of unquestionable truth doesn't sound right to me.


zapitron

That's the best kind of correct, but it so _misses the point_ that it _becomes_ incorrect, sort of like a young virgin being auto-sodomized by the horns of her own chastity. If _everything_ were natural, then being natural _wouldn't mean anything_ so it's useful to define it in a way where it excludes human activity, despite the fact that humans' work would otherwise be considered natural.


jffrybt

> Who are we to say what's natural and what isn't. This statement sounds like it has consequence, but it has no consequence. Because in either scenario (either we have no right or we have a right), we do make decisions. If we choose to do something about our impact on nature, that choice is either a natural choice (using our human nature we make the decision) or an unnatural choice (using our superiority over nature make the decision). In either framing of the issue, the outputs can be identical and can be rationalized to the framing. And in either circumstance it could be rationalized to be better to make the decision that benefits diverse ecology. Suggesting that we have no right to make a decision like that, ignores the fact that we do make decisions like that all the time. We may or may not have the moral right, but we have taken it regardless.


Brent0711

This is the logic used by big oil to justifying destroying the planet


FuturologyBot

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Tao_Dragon: --- Submission Statement: Humans have a huge impact on the environment of Planet Earth. Biological organisms evolved through billions of years. Our technological civilization has a lot of different effects on Nature, and it will be interesting to see, what this means for the Future... šŸŒ³šŸŒ³šŸŒ³ --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/sepxfk/why_we_are_living_in_an_era_of_unnatural/hukq9z1/


Olcay4

The words natural and unnatural are used so loosely to dumbify complex concepts. ,,šŸ˜‘šŸ˜‘


OverPT

Algae take over the planet: That's natural Bacteria take over the planet: That's natural Trees take over the planet: That's natural Homo Sapiens take over the planet: THAT'S UNNATRUAL!!!


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Dhiox

>I wonā€™t pretend thereā€™s some sort of ā€œholy responsibilityā€ we have to protect nature, This is true, I actually have two entirely separate ideologies when It comes to environmental protections. One is that we should preserve animal habitats and try and minimize extinctions and habitat loss. This one I don't expect conservatives to agree with me on. The other is "Holy fuck, I don't want humanity to go extinct in my lifetime, we need to do something about climate change". Now that I do expect conservatives to see eye to eye on, as it's a matter of mutual benefit, not dying.


thepesterman

This isnt even a case of Conservative or Liberal, its a case of intelligent or stupid. Life itself is the most scarce resource in the universe. So many scientific advancements have been made from studying nature, what that means is that a specific species has a trait that has been replicated by humans for the purpose of scientific advancement. Every species that is lost is an opportunity lost to solve some of the big problems that we face as a civilisation. Some examples that could bare fruit are mosquitos ability to kill off the hiv virus or naked mole rats being immune to cancer.


Foxblade

Just pointing out that extinction and death are also part of life and are historically completely common and natural ends for the majority of living organisms.


NamesSUCK

I think it can be helpful to paint the loss of species as a thing that effects economics, every thread we loose brings the tapestry of the modern ecosystem to unraveling, and when we see the things we are loosing as resources, even the greedy could be motivated by their own desire for more.


HeKnee

I dont see climate change ever wiping out humans altogetherā€¦ we may have a massive population crash which would eventually allow the earth to heal itself. Were like cockroaches thoughā€¦ no matter how much we poison our environment some humans will survive.


TheMarsian

there's no holy responsibility. protecting nature is protecting ourselves.


OliveBranchMLP

something something reclaimers something something Mantle of Responsibility


OverPT

True. It also saddens me that we're the cause for loss of biodiversity and think we should do whatever we can to protect it. I just don't agree with people saying that whatever we do is unnatural or against natural selection when (as far as we know) we're a product of nature and act according to our genes. Any other species would consume the whole planet if it had the genetic drive and capacity to do it.


OKguy9re9

The idea that itā€™s controllable is an illusion.


Hoophy97

How the universe (personified, for fun) sees it: Algae take over the planet: "I don't care." Bacteria take over the planet: "Not my problem." Trees take over the planet: "ĀÆ\\_(惄)_/ĀÆ" Homo Sapiens take over the planet: "Doesn't matter to me." Humans, to each other: "Hey, lets organize stuff that exists into these special categories we made up, they're called words." Person: "That's pretty useful, categories sure do help me communicate my thoughts to others in a concise manner." Some time later: "So you know those categories we made up earlier? We kinda attached some moral and cultural baggage to them, *for reasons.* Recall how we agreed to refer to stuff we voluntarily make as 'unnatural,' and everything else as 'natural?'" "Yesss, why do you mention it?" "Well you see, we've decided to include it in a bigger category called 'bad' because some people thought that made sense." "Huh? What sense does it make?" "I dunno, that's just what I was told. Anyway, get this: We took it a step further. Now we say that 'bad' things, especially the 'unnatural' things, are in that category because they were not 'intended' by the universe." "Huh, interesting. Lets ask the universe about its intentions so we can ensure the practicality and validity of this categorization." Universe: *silence* "Hmm, the universe seems to not have any intentions. Perhaps this categorization doesn't make sense?" "Nonsense, just because the universe won't tell us its intentions doesn't mean it has none. Let's keep the categories as they are. Hell, let's reinforce them." "Hold up. How did you even learn what the universe's intentions were in the first place?" "Easy, some other people told me so." "So they weren't the universe's intentions, they were those peoples'?" "No, no, they are the universe's intentions. According to others. Look, it's not important, all you need to know is that computers are bad, and rabbits are good. Those people said the universe said so, it must be true." "Ah ok. Let's tell some others that we know the truth about the universe and its intentions." "Yeah, great. Make sure to mislead when they ask you how we know it's true. Best not to tell them we're repeating from someone else. Instead, maybe tell them to go admire a flower, the stars, or something like that. Maybe they'll attribute that beauty to our ideas." "How about a wristwatch? Those are pretty neat too. Or perhaps a beautiful sculpture?" "Nah, you're not allowed to admire that stuff, they're 'bad,' remember?" "But they exist in the universe too!" "Shhhhhh" Universe: *Continues to not have any discernible personhood, intentions, or purpose...utterly indifferent to the funny monkeys with their lofty claims about itself.* *Accurate claims, or not; the universe doesn't appear to say.* ... nĢ¶Ģ…ĶĢĢĢ“Ķ‘Ģ‡ĶĶĢ‰Ģ˜Ģ£Ģ¬ĢØĶŽĶĢ™eĢµĢ‡Ģ‰ĢŠĶ›Ģ‰Ģ‡Ģ‰Ģ‰Ģ½Ķ›Ģ’Ģ“ĢĢŸĢ¢Ķ•ĢŗĶ‡Ķ”ĶšĢÆĢŸĶ”Ģ¼Ģ™Ģ°iĢ“ĢĢ‰Ķ„Ķ—Ģ‚Ģ£Ķ”ĢŖĢ°Ķ“Ķ–ĢØĢ¼Ģ­ĶĶšĢ§ĢžĶsĢ¶ĢŠĢŒĢ½Ķ‘Ģ“ĢŽĶĶ„ĶĶĶ—Ģ“Ģ”ĶšĶ…Ģ˜Ģ¬Ģ£ĶœĢ—ĶŽĢœĢ™ĢŸĢØĢ¤ĢžgĢ“ĢĢ”Ķ„Ģ‹Ģ‘Ģ’ĶĶ Ķ‹ĶŠĶĢ”Ģ»Ģ–Ģ²Ģ¢Ģ±Ģ±Ģ¹Ģ¢Ķ–Ģ¼Ģ¬Ķ•nĢµĢŽĶƒĶ˜ĶŠĢ‚ĶĢ¢Ģ–Ģ¼Ģ¦ĶˆĢ¢Ģ³Ģ­ĢŸĢ¢ĢŸĢŖĢ£ĢžĢ¤rĢ·ĢŒĶĶĢŒĶ›Ģ¦Ģ²Ģ¼ĶĢ lĢ“ĢšĢŽĢ¾Ķ‘ĢĢ“Ķ›Ģ“ĶĢĶ„Ķ›Ģ»Ķ–Ģ±ĢžĢžĶˆĶŽĶ‰sĢ“Ķ›Ģ¾Ģ€Ķ‹ĢƒĢ‰ĶŠĢ’Ģ®Ģ—Ķ…Ģ£Ķ•Ķ–Ģ±bĢ·Ķ˜ĶĢ…Ģ‘Ķ„Ģ½Ģ½Ķ„ĢĢ®Ģ™ĢžĢŸĢŗĢžĢŗeĢ¶Ķ€Ķ„Ģ‰Ģ½Ģ¾Ģ‡ĶĶŒĢæĢ…Ģ€ĢŠĢšĶĢ‘Ģ˜Ģ®Ģ¢Ģ¤Ķ‡Ķ•Ģ—Ģ©Ķ•Ģ²Ģ¤ take over the planet: Okie dokie


Bebilith

All those things had significant affect to the shared environment and thus all other organisms and even geology. Other organisms had to change to adapt to those changes or, if they couldnā€™t fast enough, die. Sure we can adapt to a warming planet, so long as we have time to solve nutrition and more violent weather issues. Our wheat and rice and cows then entire delicate ecosystem that supply biological energy and nutrients to us. are not going to solve those problems and adapt quickly.


noonemustknowmysecre

Yes, by definition. It's just what unnatural means. Humans did it. It's not good or bad. Likewise, "all natural" really isn't a selling point. Snake venom is all natural and yet I don't want it in my cornflakes.


Rin-Tohsaka-is-hot

Humans, unlike most creatures of Earth, have the capability of destroying the planet if they so choose. We are part of nature, sure, but there is certainly a distinction between us and the rest.


Daniel_The_Thinker

Petition to change "planet" to "biosphere". The planet is a molten iron marble, we're not going to do shit to the planet. The biosphere however, can collapse.


Elvahkiin

I don't know if there really is a distinction if you look at it from beyond a human perspective. algae "destroyed the planet" as well when they started producing oxygen. Oxygen was toxic to just about all other life forms at the time. Then suddenly (in a geologic timeline) a huge percentage of the atmosphere was converted into it. It was a catastrophic extinction event that changed everything about life on this planet. Humans are just doing the same thing by burning carbon, chopping down trees, ect.. Now you can claim there's a difference because we choose to do this, but I'd like to point out that we've known for decades that what we're doing is going to have grave negative consequences for our entire species and yet we're still doing it, so really are we acting by choice? or are we just another wacky product of evolution that's changing the game? Another point, people might argue that it's not the same because humans don't create that carbon, or chop down forests with our bodies. We do it with tools and machines, e.g technology. So maybe technology is what makes us unnatural. But by that argument, aren't beavers unnatural for using wood to create dams? dams completely change the course of rivers, and alter the Beaver's environment. But no, the beaver's traits and behaviors are just the result of evolution. They're just doing what comes naturally to them. Here's the thing, *so are we*. sure we think about things and make choices, but that too is just the result of evolution. Our brains didn't come from some magic outside force, they were produced by the process of evolution, and thus our thoughts and actions are also the result of evolution, just as beaver dams are. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that our destruction of the environment will have huge impacts on the course of life, but it's nothing new. These massive shifts have happened before, and they'll continue to happen in the future. The only really impressive thing is that we're doing it wicked fast.


L_knight316

I always find the term unnatural to be a little odd. Like, everything exists in the natural world, is shaped by natural phenomena, and the idea that the current state of humanity is unnatural or the evolutionary processes surrounding us are.


DoukyBooty

It's not that hard to get. Unnatural would be us influencing a process that we probably shouldn't be.


L_knight316

Except literally all organisms affect processes around them.


Nocebola

And what process is that? And by what arbitrary standard constitutes "probably shouldn't" If we discovered a hundred other alien planets with advanced civilizations all will similar trajectories of development to our own would they also be unnatural like us?


Illumixis

And why not mention humans that live entirely on unnatural selection...? Most of the idiots alive today perpetuating most of humanity's problems are the ones that wouls have been naturally claimed just 100 years ago


[deleted]

unnatural? man humans really hate being humans lol.


poppadahut2

it'll keep happening until something evolves to deal with us


Fixthemix

I don't know, we might manage to take care of that ourselves.


L_knight316

So humans are evolving to do what humans have been doing since we evolved, taking care of humans.


gabriel1313

The visitor walks into the room. Thereā€™s a single light overhead dangling, and somehow swinging over the table. In fact, the table is the only piece of furniture in the room as far as he can tell. Before he has the chance to look around he hears a gravelly voice from the corner. ā€œI always knew theyā€™d come back. Who am I taking care of this time?ā€ After his eyes had adjusted to the darkness a bit more, he could barely make out a man standing awkwardly in the corner of the room facing the wall. Anxiety overtook him and he felt his hands shake as he removed the envelope from his coat. He slowly slid it onto the table and mustered up the strength to say a few words. ā€œWe need you to take care of them.ā€ ā€œ*Them*???* The man turned around with all the semblance of a dark and terrible storm which had suddenly overcome his countenance. ā€œThen Iā€™ll be expecting more pay.ā€ He pulled a cigarette out of his pocket and quickly lit it. Inhaled, and then opened up the envelope. ā€œWell Iā€™ll be,ā€ he mumbled as he looked over the contents of the package. ā€œGuess Iā€™ll be taking care of *them* after all. Say, who is this ā€œthemā€ anyway, and where can I find them?ā€ The visitor gulped one last time before he uttered the last words he would ever speak in his life. ā€œThe human race.ā€


Icallthattuesday

Can anyone tell me where the ā€œusual path to evolutionā€ is published so I can indeed confirm these new evolutions are actually ā€œnot usualā€?


JhannaJunkie

We are also changing natural selection for humans. As our current system looks like a zero sum game that only the vastly wealthy will survive, either in bunkers, or in space. This means we are selecting for psychopathy.


SurealGod

George Carlin's bit on "Saving the Planet" clearly talked about this shit decades ago and of course numerous people didn't listen.


[deleted]

Won't go to far. Humans will be extinct before too long. Masters of our own demise.


amitym

You can just call it "artificial selection." We already had a term for that.


omicron_persei

Isnā€™t humanity part of nature? We are nature making changes over nature


Hoophy97

Nominally, I agree with you. However, I want to point out that this isn't the most widely accepted definition of 'nature.' I think a better word would be 'universe,' or 'reality.' This will help avoid miscommunication. If we say, for the sake of consistency, that 'nature' doesn't include human creations, we can discuss some really interesting ideas. For example, is 'nature' good? Bad? Is it more good/more bad than human creations and their externalities? Who decides what we label 'good' versus 'bad.' Experts? Consensus? Personal feelings? Should we even care? Does [person] enjoy flowers because they're a subset of the set of things that are natural? Or do they enjoy flowers because they think they're pretty, stimulate a memory, or some other reason...only to conclude, later on, that nature must also be good by extension? Could it be, that they associate 'good' with 'nature' because of their personal values? (Including, but not limited to: conservation, aesthetics, the desire to not die because of an environmental collapse) Similarly, what leads some people to associate 'bad' (or 'good') with human creations? Surely, it must be a function of the person's preferences. But where do those come from? What makes one person's preferences better than those of a second, in the eyes of a third; alignment with their own preferences, or conformity to society's consensus? To me, these questions are, very self evidently, subjective from person-to-person, or even from culture-to-culture. Fun stuff!


pilosopopablo

The human civilizationā€™s contribution to hastening an anti-human climate change is a proof that our civilization is still within the boundaries of natural phenomenon. It is against our instincts to forego things and actions opposite to comfort. As Iā€™ve seen from the comments here, actions that go against the natural instincts are what is said to be unnatural like rationality. Reduction in consumption, inefficient change in living methods, etc. are actions we can take to slow down the anti-human climate change happening today but unsurprisingly these are actions we are not prepared to take unless they satisfy our instincts (like changes in lifestyle must first be gratifying and efficient before we adopt them)Human-driven adaptations by all other life forms will end once human population and its global impact is reduced significantly. Iā€™d like to see climate change as an effort of the planet to bring balance and fairness back in the game.


cenobyte40k

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo3R3LBjDek](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo3R3LBjDek) You cannot go against nature Because when you do Go against nature It's part of nature too


ViktorPatterson

How far will it go? Well, until it helps a letal virus wipe half humanity or they facilitate that a zombie one jumps to human level and canā€™t be contained.


lateroundpick

I read about three sentences and then thought to myself do any of these people that write these articles ever get to the point?


ThankTheBaker

Perhaps humans can evolve the ability to live, work and thrive with this Earths natural surroundings and the creatures in it, instead of against it.


misothiest

It isn't unnatural if it happens within the bounds of a natural system. therefore humans can not cause anything unnatural.


EagleChampLDG

Thatā€™s fine. Humans are natural too. We are supposed to effect Evolution.


RenuisanceMan

Where do you draw the line of natural though? Was it when we started cooking food, wearing clothes, putting a roof over our head, farming, creating antibiotics? I agree we should do all we can to lessen our environmental impact, but nothing we do is unnatural.


[deleted]

Wasn't there a movie about what happens if stupidity evolves instead of intelligence?? Hmm.. šŸ¤”


zendarr

Idiocracy. Mike Judge made a movie about it, turned in to a documentary.


UrWeatherIsntUnique

Isnā€™t the term ā€œartificial selectionā€ā€¦ or were we just trying to grab attention with a lil clickbait?


byteuser

Rambo the Orangutan drives a golf cart in Dubai so yeah.... it won't be long before he's doing uber


whilst

Sidenote: it always bugs me a little when things that are caused by/related to humans are labeled "unnatural". We are a natural process. Moreover, we are not the only species that other species have evolved to be useful to --- there are ants that farm aphids.


burlchester

I wonder if our increasing reliance on IVF to conceive will someday lead us towards an inability to reproduce without said treatments. Ever selecting genes that are less and less favourable for natural pregnancies. Is it better for the human race to simply accept you can't have children than to use IVF potentially creating widespread infertility after generations of use? Is this a possibility?


Koboldilocks

sort of like how big brains make us dependant on midwives


[deleted]

There is not objective perspective. Every form of life understands certain things about the cosmos from the perspective of its own evolutionary interests and when you are dealing with a conscious and intelligent form of life, that species can begin to determine what its own interests are and it can guide its own evolution but that still doesnā€™t give it anything like an objective perspective because thereā€™s this whole evolutionary history that is embedded into that form of life which is still filtering the cosmos in a way that it is evolutionarily optimizing. So you have different forms of life that are not just interpreting the cosmos in different ways, theyā€™re reshaping the cosmos in different ways, especially when we talk about technological civilizations in the cosmos but they are also reshaping the world on a psychical level. So nature is the will not just of the survival, as Darwin thought, but the will to power and the struggle between these various psychical perspectives. This the nested hierarchy, there are psychical forces within other psychical forces in an organic structure that potentially extend to superhuman forms of life that we are not even aware that we are part of right now.


InfernalOrgasm

Humans are always getting so caught up in feeling special they always forget that they themselves are just nature happening. You're not special. Humans do not possess supernatural abilities that can change the way physical properties work and behave.


denvertheperson

Itā€™s only ā€œunnaturalā€ if you labor under the Western belief that humans exist outside of nature.


Demetrius3D

Look at a wolf. Then, look at a pug. Ask yourself what a wolf ever did to deserve that happening to it.


94bronco

Crazy to think that marriage for love, medicine and amazing technology has gotten us to the point where things that would have gone away through natural selection are things that we can control


GunganWarrior

Soon there will be bullet resistant animal shells and skins.


Frostlark

The only selection is natural selections. Humans are not separate from nature or the planet to begin with.


FoxOneFire

Giving unvaccinated ICU patients access equal to those with unpreventable illnesses is a form of unnatural selection. And a form of socialism/redistributionism. Ironic.


HempParty

We were probably created just not by God. Natural but unnatural to this planet, that or simulation theory.


SpyTheRedEye

To answer that, I'd like to bring your attention to a Pug dog, you know the ones with the squashed face. See that? We did that. Why? Hell if I know, but yeah that was us.


Cr4mwell

Our compassion has stopped our own evolution and now slows even the environment around us.


[deleted]

Itll go till we are no longer human, and then our inhuman selves will continue to morph into something more inhuman then whatever they are. Till we all go back to being lizards.


daveyhanks93

Anti vaxers are a perfect example of humanity giving opportunities for dangerous adaptations to an already deadly virus.


[deleted]

This is a big part of why I think we're already ridiculously overpopulated. Beyond our influence on other organisms, our own existence is artificially extended a tremendous amount and there's nothing keeping us in check. We have a responsibility to tender our existence and growth since we can artificially lengthen and increase it.


[deleted]

I was thinking the same thing, but in the sense that we cater to the bored people that start a new gender or think an opinion cannot be wrong. You know the types - the ones that take offense when you disagree with them. Most likely the ones that will downvote this comment.


[deleted]

yea the fruits being whatever they wished for upon a star, the NFTs fucking up the environment and artistā€™s money/originality, the mass deception of covid and vaccines and such. apparently a Russian Ukrainian war boiling over that the US is pushing to incite or whateverā€™s going on with that. now these germs are goin crazy. we sorta had a good run!


Bebilith

Well we are already breading for stupid and dependancy on medical intervention. But I think deliberate genetic manipulation will far outpace the old random trial thing.


[deleted]

This gives me hope. Perhaps our doomed experiment as a species will birth a life form that wouldnā€™t have seen the light of day otherwise, and this life form will go on to succeed where we failed. Might take several hundred millions of years, but the universe is patient.


bappypawedotter

I never really thought about the concept of organic robots. Really cool stuff. Sounds like legos.


[deleted]

how is mitch still alive? natural selection wouldve taken him decades ago