OT: Humans

[Err]

Are humans a part of nature?You can interpret the question anyway you want. I asked several people and depending on who I ask, either a religious person or just a regular 'ol Joe, what they say is similar but they have a different way of interpreting the question. So I'm here asking people from around the world. What do you think?P.S. Don't base your opinions on the comments of other people who posted already, I want to know what you truly believe.

[aspnetguy]

Having a "religious" background I believe that nature (plants, trees, animals, etc) were created before humans, so, no I don't think of humans as part of nature.Nature is harmonious, working together, self preservating. Humans only destabalize that balance.

[Err]

Good point. Consider this: We breathe, communicate, reproduce, eat, need all the necessities of day and night, we have brains, muscles, bones, just like any animal (most of them anyways) that is a part of nature, only difference is that we have a superior brain and body structured just right which enables us to do a lot more. Heck even the skies and ground are a part of nature. If we are not a part of nature than what are we? Even if someone does say "God", if you read the bible it states: "From dust you are, and to dust you will return" touché?I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong or right. I'm just trying to have an intelligent unbiased discussion that looks at all sides.

[aspnetguy]

You are right, this si a discussion that could be debated from many angles and forever. I am not saying anyone is wrong or right either, but personally when someone says nature I just don't think of humans. I think of trees and animals and some place with no pollution, etc

[justsomeguy]

I think people are a part of nature. Look at the opposite, what is "not natural"? Is it artificial? I can't see how we would be artificial, so we must be natural (with the exception of Michael Jackson, who is most certainly not a part of nature).

[aspnetguy]

I think people are a part of nature. Look at the opposite, what is "not natural"? Is it artificial? I can't see how we would be artificial, so we must be natural (with the exception of Michael Jackson, who is most certainly not a part of nature).

no, I'd say he still is...the freak of nature

[justsomeguy]

Ooh, good call.

[Err]

I think people are a part of nature. Look at the opposite, what is "not natural"? Is it artificial? I can't see how we would be artificial, so we must be natural (with the exception of Michael Jackson, who is most certainly nota part of nature).

lmao... aspnetguy got that right.Well, that being said. Why can't we be a part of evolution?

[aspnetguy]

not that I agree with evolution, but who said we weren't? Cromagnum-man anyone?that is pretty much the same question. If eveolution is true then we are a part of it and thus we are a part of nature

[justsomeguy]

Well, that being said. Why can't we be a part of evolution?

Since when are we not a part of evolution? We have an appendix that doesn't do anything. In apes, it helps them digest starches in bamboo, but we don't eat bamboo so it doesn't do anything for us except get infected, it's just left over from an earlier ancestor. We have a tail bone, but we don't have a tail. These are signs that at some point in our history we or our ancestors had certain traits that we don't have any more, and that's (part of) what evolution is.

[Err]

I apologize, that wasn't my intended way to ask that question. I meant it in a way that asks "what about evolution then?".Anyways, I'm not saying we are not a part of evolution or that we are (Who's Cromagnum-man anyways?). Yes, either way you look at it, we can't exist if we didn't come from somewhere. It's odd though, humans give so little back to our environment, we constantly destroy things around us; people, ozone, animals, etc, and we give so little back. It's not surprising that some people think we are not part of nature, which is balanced, like aspnetguy mentioned earlier.I once asked a very religious person that question, he thought about it for a minute, then responded: "Well, I guess you can say we are not a part of nature. God put us here to enjoy life and benefit from it." And I didn't sway his thoughts after I asked him. My mom who is also very religious, picked the anti-evolution side of her interpretation of the question and also said we are not part nature. You know, it's very interesting getting input from different people.

[justsomeguy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-MagnonIf you look at it, you will be pretty hard-pressed to find examples of animals that do give something back to the environment. Animals cause destruction as well, they just do it on a much smaller scale. The forest is not going to fall down because some deer is rubbing the bark off a tree. That tree may die, but that's about it.The only thing really unique about humans is technology. We have advanced technology far enough that, if we were trying, it would be very easy for us to destroy large pieces of land quickly, and even without trying (through negligence) we are slowly destroying local environments. It would be nice if people were motivated less by greed and more by sustainability, but that's just not reality.

[Jonas]

but personally when someone says nature I just don't think of humans. I think of trees and animals and some place with no pollution, etc

That's a romantic view of nature then, like in the 1800-1850 era. I'm not saying there's something wrong with that image of nature, I partially do that myself. When someone say nature, I immediately think green fields and uninhabited (by humans) areas. RahXephon's question really depends on whether you tie nature with the connotations or denotation. I consider us (humans) part of nature, as in part of this world, ecosystems, originating from evolution, subject to the "powers" of nature such as the different elements, and yet we are above our outside nature in that we are so much more advanced and aware of ourselves in a whole other way. We have a language to communicate and describe our own reality. At the same time, we are, as Agent Smith puts it in the Matrix; a disease.

[jesh]

I once asked a very religious person that question...

I think it would be good to keep in mind that "religious" does not necessariy mean Christian (or even Judeo-Christian-Islamic). It is the Western religions that place emphasis on human ownership of and separation from nature. Other religious traditions do not see it this way.

[Err]

I think it would be good to keep in mind that "religious" does not necessariy mean Christian (or even Judeo-Christian-Islamic). It is the Western religions that place emphasis on human ownership of and separation from nature. Other religious traditions do not see it this way.

You missed my point. I was saying "religious" in respect to that persons religion and not all religions in general. I don't care what religion they are in or where they are on a map. The example I was illustrating wasn't that I was singling out only certain religious people (from the west), all I was looking for was their views on the subject, whatever their religion might be may affect their opinions, but that's out of the question.@justsomeguy: That was an interesting link. Thanks for sharing.

[pulpfiction]

My point of view, we are a part of nature... just like any other thing in nature, trees, animals..... we just do things differently... trees get energy [food] in a different way compared to animals, similarly humans do it in a different way. its just that we are dominent over the other species....

[jesh]

I mean no offense, but if you are not commenting on the "very religious" person's religion, why mention that they are "very religious"? From the way your post is presented, I read that you were saying that very religious people think that humans are separate from nature. But anyhow, I think we're animals and we're made of matter so we are therefore part of nature. If you look at the first three definitions of nature in the American Heritage dictionary, I would say that we are definitely part of nature:

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.

[Err]

No, it doesn't really matter if I said it or not, I knew this fact already but the reader didn't. It was important for me to mention it because it provides contrast to readers who think that the argument is biased, vis-à-vis very religious. Also thanks for your input.

[ible-white]

Are humans a part of nature?

Most definitely! Look at: Genesis 1:26--> "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth........ Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." This places us directly in the heart of nature.when nature is out of balance, we are affected too. for instance, when there is a tornado, huricane, earthquake, etc, it affects us. when the rain does not fall and the plants gets no water, we have no crop to eat. when it rains too much, it might cause a flood. if it snows too heavy for too long- u know.

...but personally when someone says nature I just don't think of humans. I think of trees and animals and some place with no pollution, etc

well, frankly, whether it has pollution or not, its still nature. the river up the road is polluted, but its still a part of nature.

Since when are we not a part of evolution?

we have NEVER been a part of evolution my dear. we were CREATED by God our Creator- we did not just evolved from nowhere! Our bodies are too perfected constructed for us to have appeared out of no where just like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon.... The only thing really unique about humans is technology.

pardon me, but this world is only 6,000 years old. from creation to the flood is 2,000 yrs, from the flood to the cross is 2,000 yrs and from the cross to now is 2,000 yrs= add it up u get 6,000. when God created the earth, everything was created in a mature stage, thus, Adam and Eve were created as adults and not babies. the trees and animals were also created in a mature stage. so, if scientists try to put an age to those things way back then, of course it would seem as though they existed long before because they were created mature.technology? hmm.... humans were the only thing that was created with the capacity to think and reason logically. we were created with the freedom of choice- thus, that is why Adam and Eve could have eaten the fruit- "choice". Genesis 3:5 says "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Knowing good and evil means that they were now able to intelligently and logically reason things out for themselves. they now had an awareness about what is evil and what is good. it is with this intelligence that birthed technology.well, this is just my take on this subject. u cant get with me... its my perspective

[Jonas]

I'm not angry with you for your beliefs, but I do think it's really narrow-minded, and I could never see it the same way. Even if I believed in a higher being, a deity, the creation would have to date back to the Big Bang, because that's the only thing they can't explain (as of now at least). Before the Big Bang there was nothing, or they don't know what. Still, the world being only 6,000 years old is just ridiculous to me.Have you heard of Bill Hicks? You should rent the DVD Revelations and see it through. For example, if the world is only 6,000 years old (or 12,000 as some fundamentalist christians think), why wasn't dinosaurs mentioned in the bible? Why have scientists dug up fossils that show evidence of dinosaurs having existed? Do you not believe in dinosaurs having existed?

[aspnetguy]

I don't think it is narrow-minded to belive in God, but I do think it is narrow minded to think the earth is only 6000 years old. How do you explain dinosaurs then???

[Jonas]

I don't think it is narrow-minded to belive in God

which was of course not what I meant either...

[aspnetguy]

how is it that there was an explosion of nothing? Seems to me that belief in the Big Bang takes just as much faith and believing in God

[Akula_dude]

mmkay, my thoughts are that we are natural in ourselves, but add anything artificial into the mix and its not natural... simple :)Oh, and Ible-White, im not saying this because of religion, its nothing to do with that, but you were talking about your beliefs like fact: "pardon me, but this world is only 6,000 years old." Im cool, i know thats a belief, but some people might take that the wrong way. sorry for how that might have sounded...

[justsomeguy]

we have NEVER been a part of evolution my dear. we were CREATED by God our Creator- we did not just evolved from nowhere! Our bodies are too perfected constructed for us to have appeared out of no where just like that.pardon me, but this world is only 6,000 years old. from creation to the flood is 2,000 yrs, from the flood to the cross is 2,000 yrs and from the cross to now is 2,000 yrs= add it up u get 6,000. when God created the earth, everything was created in a mature stage, thus, Adam and Eve were created as adults and not babies. the trees and animals were also created in a mature stage. so, if scientists try to put an age to those things way back then, of course it would seem as though they existed long before because they were created mature.technology? hmm.... humans were the only thing that was created with the capacity to think and reason logically. we were created with the freedom of choice- thus, that is why Adam and Eve could have eaten the fruit- "choice". Genesis 3:5 says "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Knowing good and evil means that they were now able to intelligently and logically reason things out for themselves. they now had an awareness about what is evil and what is good. it is with this intelligence that birthed technology.well, this is just my take on this subject. u cant get with me... its my perspective

You have to realize that all of that is essentially your opinion. I never said we appeared out of nowhere, just like that. We are the product of several million years of fine-tuning by nature. If you want me to show you the evolutionary history of how our eye evolved to be what it is, I can show you that.I realize these are your personal beliefs, and that you do believe them, but I think it's a little naive when science is able, through observation and testing, to determine the age of something with a high level of precision. Science says "this primitive human fossil is of a three to five year old female child who lived 3.3 million years ago, and here is our data" and you can sit there with your fingers in your ears saying "la la la la la I can't hear you!" Like I said, I realize these are your beliefs. The point of all these links is not to try and prove you wrong, or make you believe something else or anything like that. I'm just trying to get across the point that your beliefs are exactly that - your beliefs - so please don't present them as if they are undisputable facts. There are many people who share your views, but there are also many people who believe that things like evolution are self-evident and maybe even obvious.I do have a question though about your logic. You claim that the planet is 6,000 years old. Where does God draw the line? Does this only include the planet itself, or the entire solar system including the sun, or the entire galaxy including all the stars we see, or the entire universe? Because there are many many things that we can see in the universe that are so far that it takes the light from those objects millions of years to reach us. So if everything is only 6,000 years old, then we would only be able to see objects that are 6,000 light years away or less. But we can see things that are millions of light years distant, so that light has been travelling through space for several million years to reach us. How do you reconcile things like that with what you believe?