In many philosophical doctrines nature plays a key role. How do you define nature? I am constantly wondering if man is from nature or is man nature/a part of nature itself. Today I made an observation that maybe nature is innate life. This would really help me in my studies so what do you guys think? Thanx,jessica:brickwall::detective:

To claim that civilization is not natural because it has been made by man is like saying that glucose is not natural because it is made by bacteria...

... Should that complex condition change in any significant degree, it would still be nature, a complex condition, but, perhaps without us as part.

Khethil;

I would say that anything that is, is natural, there are however man made elements that do not occur in nature, but the fact that it is, infers that the possiablity was there all along. Perhaps there should be another term for what man is doing to nature, other than to call it unnatural. The verious destructive industries of man are not unnatural, but they do disrupt the processes of nature, and nature as our life support system is threatened by man's unthoughtful sucesses. That which is, is natural, and man's thoughtless natural deeds, will lead to his natural end.

jgweed,

Perhaps if we just stick to identifying those activities of mankind that disrupt the processes of nature. Like industry, over population outstripping natural resources and not allowing natures processes to counterbalance our behaviours as a species.

In many philosophical doctrines nature plays a key role. How do you define nature? I am constantly wondering if man is from nature or is man nature/a part of nature itself. Today I made an observation that maybe nature is innate life. This would really help me in my studies so what do you guys think?

You guy are over complicating this;

The simple truth "Nature Is Indifferent"

Welcome thy Occam's Razor!

-TRoN

BaCaRdi,

I agree nature is indifferent, well not quite, indifference is a human quality, inferring awareness of, yet disinterest in. Nature is simply unaware of you and your need to survive. How does this understanding alone inform us of how to live with nature. If we can live with nature in a way which support the vitality of the conditon of nature, then we are onto something. Basically our present approach is mindless, distructive and as we are finding out, deadly. Personally I cannot think of a better defination than to say nature is a complex condition, or nature is a complex system. If we are causing disfunction of the system, you might say, we are as a cancer to that system.

Right. Let's do away with antibiotics, computers, and surgery, and live in the state of nature. As Hobbes described it, brutish, ugly, and short.

I don't think that this is what boagie was suggesting.

I think we could, however, do away with a few such practices as strip-mining, mass deforestation, slash and burn agriculture . . . maybe a few more controls on emissions would be nice as well. And no, I'm not talking about the much debated concept of Global Warming, but the more general concept of not having to suck brown air into our lungs.

I don't think that this is what boagie was suggesting.

Well, he does write, " If we are causing disfunction of the system, you might say, we are as a cancer to that system." I don't know what he means by that, and neither, I think , do you. But sometimes people who do not think carefully (or really at all) don't recognize all the implications of what they say. They consider only one side of the story and entirely neglect the other side of the story. Many diseases of thought, like diseases of the body, are caused by a one-sided diet.

... indicates that you may think I might be one of those wild-eyed nature-boys spouting baseless environmentalist dogma and rhetoric, and waving my tattered copy of Edward Abbey's The Monkey Wrench Gang over my head like a Pentecostal supplicant while marching about in a cloud of patchouli oil in my hemp sandals and Inconvenient Truth t-shirt...

Well, perhaps boagie will pop in and explain what he means. I assumed that he meant that man's propensity for unregulated, unchecked growth was very similar to the mechanics of a cancer cell with often similar consequences to the system it inhabits.

Perhaps I'm mistaken (my apologies if I am) but I detect a tone in your post that indicates that you may think I might be one of those wild-eyed nature-boys spouting baseless environmentalist dogma and rhetoric, and waving my tattered copy of Edward Abbey's The Monkey Wrench Gang over my head like a Pentecostal supplicant while marching about in a cloud of patchouli oil in my hemp sandals and Inconvenient Truth t-shirt.

Sadly, that would be an incorrect assumption.

While it's true that I believe that we should strive to be more environmentally responsible, and I enjoy the writings of such authors as Muir, Whitman, Thoreau, Emerson, et al, I have as yet to succumb to the cult of radical environmentalism, which is brilliantly described here: MichaelCrichton.com | Environmentalism as Religion. Rest in Peace, Michael.

I believe there are elements of truth in both camps regarding how we should, or should not, treat the environment in which we live. There is also a level of arrogance, distrust, and hypocrisy that comes with the taking of an extremist viewpoint on both sides, which, of course, is what makes it very difficult for either side to accomplish anything positive.

That being said, your comment that "diseases of thought, like diseases of the body, are caused by a one-sided diet" is absolutely accurate. I agree entirely. What you are talking about (at least what I have inferred) is that balance and harmony are essential for health. I would simply like to see this same level of balance applied to environmental concerns, as a healthy environment is as essential for a healthy body and mind as is the food we eat and the information we process.

Regards,
Tock