...another Amur Leopard Dead.

[Danno]

Metal is a part of the eath just as sticks are.

 

[K.J.]

Yes, but are the big machines used to scoop up ore natural? Is the machine that grinds them up, and places them in a furnace natural? Is the furnace that heats them up natural?

 

[Danno]

Uhm, yes. Humans have the ability to use tools to furthur their chance of survival.

 

[K.J.]

So if a human is attacked by an amur, it has to be shot.
But if a human attacks a, say, rhino, it's just whatever?
Face it. Humans are narcissistic.

 

[Danno]

I wouldn't say that we are narcissistic...

We just have very large brains compaired to other animals, and we invent things to protect us.

 

[K.J.]

But we knock down forests for civilizations and parking lots, we throw trash into the river with no thought except for we're too lazy to find a garbage can and can't risk our car getting dirty. That's narcissistic.

 

[Danno]

Or is that survival?

 

[K.J.]

No, because eventually we'll wipe the whole world out and then people will start to die off from sheer lack of space. That's stupidity, not survival. I guess the amor leopard just couldn't survive against the top of the food chain, huh?

 

[Danno]

I think it is just that we have two different ways of looking at the world.

By no means do I mean that people should not try to save endangered spieces though

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Their are chimps that use sticks to lure out and eat termites. Is that "un-natural"?

Metal is a part of the eath just as sticks are.

Danno, here is a definition of man-made;

manmade

adjective

1. Made by human beings instead of nature: artificial, manufactured, synthetic. See culture/nature.
2. Made to imitate something else: artificial, imitation, mock, simulated, synthetic. Informal pretend. See real/imaginary.

http/www.answers.com/topic/man-made


We are natural, however what we invent is not natural- what we invent is man-made.

Sticks occur in nature, they are natural. Nature creates millions of sticks- it is not about what the chimps do with the sticks, it is about what they are. Man did not invent the stick, nature did. Guns are not created in nature nor are they invented by it, you do not see guns in the natural landscape anywhere which are not man-made etc. So unlike the stick, the gun is a man-made creation. Metal is a natural substance, a gun is not- man invented the gun, so it is a man-made thing. Etc.
Thus killing an amur leopard with a gun is not natural.

Danno, I am really suprised you are completely oblivious to the concept of "man-made".Just because we occur in nature does not mean everything we do, create or invent is natural.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

I have to say Tokis, I think there is more of a debate to be had than you are implying.

just because a word is in a dictionary and has a definition does not mean that the concept is 100% sound.

I wouldn't say i nescessarily agree with it but there is definately an argument to be had that everything we do is part of nature, it's natural that we have evolved to use tools, just as it is natural that some chimps use sticks (apparently, never heard of that before! lol), was it still natural when the first cavemen made spears or assembled basic tools from 2/3 different pieces of wood/stones? Many animals use 'tools' it is not inconceivable that one of them constructs a tool from more than one item or that it would not be a vast evolutionary step for one of the relativley advanced species to begin doing so now.

The step up from primitive tools to what we have now has been relatively gradually over the course of human evolution with small developments made all the time. At what point do you decide that it is no longer natural and it is man made?

I think to say our actions are seperate from the rest of nature is extremley vain and implies in some way we are better than the rest of the natural world. Which I think is complete rubbish to be completely honest. We are a part of nature, as are our actions, as a species we have our impact on the planet as every other species does. The extent of our impact is a whole different discussion that I won't go into now, however I don't think it's nescessarily right to exclude ourselves from 'nature'

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I have to say Tokis, I think there is more of a debate to be had than you are implying.

just because a word is in a dictionary and has a definition does not mean that the concept is 100% sound.

I wouldn't say i nescessarily agree with it but there is definately an argument to be had that everything we do is part of nature, it's natural that we have evolved to use tools, just as it is natural that some chimps use sticks (apparently, never heard of that before! lol), was it still natural when the first cavemen made spears or assembled basic tools from 2/3 different pieces of wood/stones? Many animals use 'tools' it is not inconceivable that one of them constructs a tool from more than one item or that it would not be a vast evolutionary step for one of the relativley advanced species to begin doing so now.

The step up from primitive tools to what we have now has been relatively gradually over the course of human evolution with small developments made all the time. At what point do you decide that it is no longer natural and it is man made?

Well with the tool thing, i would say a tool becomes a man-made creation/invention when it cannot (or is highly unlikely to be able to) be replicated in nature without the aid of man.
For example, a peice of sharp flint lying on the ground could be picked up by early man and used to strike an animal on the head with it, and so the peice of flint becomes a weapon. So man creates the concept of using the flint intentionally as a weapon, which then becomes a man-made concept. But the flint itself is not a man-made creation; man is simply harnessing the power of the flint. The flint itself is still natural, just like a stick. The flint becomes part of a man-made thing when it is ensembled into the part of something else as a whole which would not occur in nature, like the flint in an antique gun. The flint is a natural material, but when used to make something completely different like an antique gun it is not about the flint anymore but the end product it has been used to make, which is man-made.
Same with fire- man did not invent fire, he simply harnessed the power of fire. Fire is a natural occurance in nature. But the concept of intentionally creating a controlled fire to cook food on so it becomes tastier when consumed is a man-made concept, as no where else in nature do non-human animals create a controlled fire to cook food on.

I think to say our actions are seperate from the rest of nature is extremley vain and implies in some way we are better than the rest of the natural world. Which I think is complete rubbish to be completely honest. We are a part of nature, as are our actions, as a species we have our impact on the planet as every other species does. The extent of our impact is a whole different discussion that I won't go into now, however I don't think it's nescessarily right to exclude ourselves from 'nature'

We are still a part of nature, but having the concept of "man-made" helps us understand ourselves- it is not about being vain or distancing ourselves from the rest of nature, we are still a part of it, yet we are also unique in many ways- to say we are not would be to underestimate/under-value ourselves, just as it would be to underestimate/under-value any other animal if you said there was nothing unique about it (as IMHO, i personally believe every species of animal on earth is unique in its own various ways, even though at the same time we also all hold a lot of certain things in common which each other).
"Man-made" is a concept, and like every other concept we have it is about helping us to understand ourselves and the world around us and how we fit into the big picture etc. IMHO, To say there is nothing unique about us in nature is just as wrong as saying we are above everything else in the world.

 

[Danno]

Definitions aren't always correct. If a cat made something, would that be cat-made? If a gerbil made something, would that be gerbil-made? .. And if a man made something, that would be man-made.

Man-made is an industrial term, not a term used in philosophical debates.

Just because I have a different view of what is natural and what is "fake" does not make me oblivious to concepts.

Same with fire- man did not invent fire, he simply harnessed the power of fire. Fire is a natural occurrence in nature. But the concept of intentionally creating a controlled fire to cook food on so it becomes tastier when consumed is a man-made concept, as no where else in nature do non-human animals create a controlled fire to cook food on.

Just because we do something doesn't make it un-natural. You don't call dung beetles un-natural because they make their habitat out crap. They do something unique that no other animal does as we harness materials like no other animal does.

Humans are very unique to what they can do. Just because they do something that is different does not separate themselves from nature.


But lets get back on topic and talk about the Amur Leopard.

 

[K.J.]

I'm forgetting, weren't we talking about Amur Leopards?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I'm forgetting, weren't we talking about Amur Leopards?

Yes, but the man-made thing is all related to the natural selection thing with the demise of the amur leopard and how much responsability we have over it in the big picture of things etc. I.e. should we let it go extinct because this is just natural selection happening as we humans are a part of nature, we are not responsable for it and shouldn't interfere with a completely natural process, or should we take responsablity over its demise and stop this act of nature because its extinction is most man-made etc.

Definitions aren't always correct. If a cat made something, would that be cat-made? If a gerbil made something, would that be gerbil-made? .. And if a man made something, that would be man-made.

Man-made is an industrial term, not a term used in philosophical debates.

Just because I have a different view of what is natural and what is "fake" does not make me oblivious to concepts.

Same with fire- man did not invent fire, he simply harnessed the power of fire. Fire is a natural occurrence in nature. But the concept of intentionally creating a controlled fire to cook food on so it becomes tastier when consumed is a man-made concept, as no where else in nature do non-human animals create a controlled fire to cook food on.

Just because we do something doesn't make it un-natural. You don't call dung beetles un-natural because they make their habitat out crap. They do something unique that no other animal does as we harness materials like no other animal does.

Humans are very unique to what they can do. Just because they do something that is different does not separate themselves from nature.


But lets get back on topic and talk about the Amur Leopard.

Well i'll make this short and simple and put it this way- would you call an animal living in a cage a natural thing or not?