Human Activity: Natural or Unnatural?

[Oaktree]

I've been thinking about this lately: why is it that human activity is considered unnatural?

We are animals that evolved on this planet, the same way every other animal evolved. We simply happen to be more intelligent. It's not that we have an entirely different class of intelligence, either; other animals have demonstrated traits such as recognition of self and meta-cognition. We just happen to have more advanced abilities in terms of intelligence.

We are more able to affect our environment than other animals, but we are not the only animals that have an impact on the environment. Two examples: beavers change the flow of streams and cause the formation of ponds with their dams; elephants cause deforestation, turning forest into savanna. Again, humans are capable of greater effect on the environment, but it is not something that is unique to humans.

Even basic moral behavior can be observed in other animals. It is accepted as fact that altruism exists in many species of animals. A primatologist named Frans de Waal has done research into ethical behavior in primates. Animals will not always base their decisions on what allows them to survive, but sometimes will base their decisions on increasing the survival and decreasing pain to other animals.

Conversely, other animals also show the same moral failings as humans. Various animals have been known to steal, rape, kill for sport, and do many other things that are often, mistakenly, considered solely human behavior.

My intent isn't to say that other animals are exactly like humans. Other animals aren't capable of the same level of cognitive function as humans, so it may be questionable to hold them to the same moral principles, for example. Ultimately, though, our behaviors aren't that much different.

This leads into the heart of the matter. Why is it that, even with all of our similarities to other animals, everything that we produce or alter is considered 'unnatural'? Why is a skyscraper more unnatural than a bird's nest? How is a corporate management structure different from the dominance order in a wolf pack? How is our ability to compete with other species any different from the competition between two species in the wild?

[Daisie]

How is our ability to compete with other species any different from the competition between two species in the wild?You're right that we're not separate from our environment. Certainly, our competition with other species--elephants, wolves, bacteria, or pine trees--is natural. But because of our reason and cognitive ability, because we got lucky and ended up with the best brains around, it's our responsibility to act sensibly and with consideration for the rest of the world and its future. That's what makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom.

[Oaktree]

I agree that we need to use our abilities responsibly, but, if we were to act responsibly, what then separates us? I'm trying to get at this idea that people have that human technology is unnatural, or that human selection is much different than the natural selection in a predator-prey relationship, for example. We have a higher level of intelligence and hold ourselves to a moral standard, but other animals are also intelligent in varying degrees. Every life-form on this planet has some effect on their surroundings. For all of our brain-power, we still know relatively little about the effect we have on other organisms and the environment. If other animals cannot be held responsible for the effect they have, can we be held responsible for extinctions that we unknowingly caused, for example?

[fakepeeps7]

Why is it that, even with all of our similarities to other animals, everything that we produce or alter is considered 'unnatural'?

Because we like to think we're different. Because many of our religions tell us we're different from animals.

The notion that murder is "natural" wouldn't be very popular... even if it is technically true.

[fragglerocks]

Interesting fact I just read - Our DNA is far more similar to chimps, than a rat's DNA is to a mouse.

But the difference between us and chimps is that we have the ability to plan ahead; think about the future. Something in our DNA allowed for this, and this is something no other creature does.

As far as us unknowingly causing bad things to happen, I'm not sure where you are going with this. If we unknowingly do it, then how can we be blamed?

On another note, we know driving cars are bad for the ozone layer, but do we stop doing it right away? No. But slowly, over time we make the necessary changes. Now, if it were possible that a lion eating its prey was harmful to the environment...do you think the lion would ever change its ways? Could its brain ever realize that? Not likely.

Hope that made some sense. Its way past my bedtime. :p

[jooxis]

Unnatural pretty much means man-made and I see the purpose of this differentiation. When we replicate something we have seen in nature (since we have the cognitive abilities to do so) we have made something unnatural. Like a prosthetic leg, artificial heart, eyeglasses, any sort of food or material imitations, etc... I don't see what's worng with simply making a differentiation of what has been made by nature and what natural creations humans have replicated. Even though humans themselves are creations of nature it still helps to differentiate these things in everyday life.

[Oaktree]

As far as us unknowingly causing bad things to happen, I'm not sure where you are going with this. If we unknowingly do it, then how can we be blamed?

On another note, we know driving cars are bad for the ozone layer, but do we stop doing it right away? No. But slowly, over time we make the necessary changes. Now, if it were possible that a lion eating its prey was harmful to the environment...do you think the lion would ever change its ways? Could its brain ever realize that? Not likely.


What I was getting at with the comment about unknowingly causing harm is the fact that many environmentalists think that humans are terrible because we've done harm to other life forms. A lot of the harm we have done was done unknowingly. I'm not saying that all of it was, but some of it we simply didn't have the scientific knowledge to understand.

I suppose I may be fighting a pointless fight on this point, though, because most of the environmentalist who get really loud about how 'evil' humans are aren't likely to be swayed by reason. :P

Unnatural pretty much means man-made and I see the purpose of this differentiation. When we replicate something we have seen in nature (since we have the cognitive abilities to do so) we have made something unnatural. Like a prosthetic leg, artificial heart, eyeglasses, any sort of food or material imitations, etc... I don't see what's worng with simply making a differentiation of what has been made by nature and what natural creations humans have replicated. Even though humans themselves are creations of nature it still helps to differentiate these things in everyday life.

Does this mean that anything that any other animal makes is unnatural? For that matter, our atmosphere developed to be what it is now in response to the emergence of life on this planet. Is the entire environmental system we live in 'unnatural'?

[sparrow_from_planet_astos]

i'll only say this: i am not a poo flinging, butt scratching monkey. i don't know why but it bothers me.

[grumpy_otter]

Conversely, other animals also show the same moral failings as humans. Various animals have been known to steal, rape, kill for sport, and do many other things that are often, mistakenly, considered solely human behavior.

Otters never do anything like that.

I had heard that animals will steal and kill for fun (but is it "fun" or training?), but had never heard of rape. My experience among mammals is that when the female doesn't want it, the male can't force her. Do you have an example?

[Mistermook]

The point is that we shouldn't be so competitive and competent in being how we are that we start adversely impacting the larger world in a way that adversely affects ourselves. If the Spotted Owl becomes extinct just because we want more shopping malls then maybe that's not such a big deal, unless it causes the population of field mice to grow which eventually has us wondering about how to kill off the field mice because we're dying from some field mice plague. Global warming? Not a big deal - except for the people in low lying areas prone to flooding, or coastal areas, or fishermen who make their living off of animals that live seawater of a specific salinity and acidity, or the people who eat those fish, or the species that survive off of those fish, or the economies that thrive off of the variety in consumption provided by consuming seafood.

It's not that unnatural = bad, it's that we shouldn't be so keen to do things that screw us over in the end. It's probably not the end of the world - we've survived thousands of species extinctions, invasive species takeovers, climate change, and the like. But we can do something about it, and maybe we should, if not because we've got some emotional attachment to food that's not reprocessed algae mixed with artificial food coloring or breathing outside without a respirator to protect us from pollutants, but because those things that we could do if we're not careful (or those things we could correct where we were not already careful) aren't the sort of things that we would like to happen personally. To us.

[missy harries]

Well, every thing we do is natural to us, what ever we cause around us, do, think, act even build obviously comes naturally or we wouldn't do it in the first place. Manmade is only deemed unnatural because it wasn't made my mother nature (or god depending on your veiw).
But an intresting point, Is being gay really unnatural when you have chinese lesbian monkey's http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3305514/Lesbian-Japanese-monkeys-challenge-Darwins-assumptions.html.

[Nekowolf]

@grumpy_otter

I think species of ducks, or maybe it was geese, do.

[Oaktree]

Nekowolf beat me to it. :P

Dogs will sometimes hump another dog that they are trying to be dominant over as well. I'm pretty sure there are other examples, but I can't name any others off the top of my head.

[fakepeeps7]

@grumpy_otter

I think species of ducks, or maybe it was geese, do.

I think you're right. Mallard ducks are known to be rapists. They'll even chase the females down and do it in the air!

[grumpy_otter]

Thanks Neko, Oak, and Peeps!

I don't think what male animals do can be called rape. How on earth could a duck (with no hands) force a female is she didn't allow it? I used to raise chickens, and the cock would grab the hens neck feathers in his beak, but if she wasn't receptive, all she had to do was shift her hind and he'd be looking like an idiot, hopping around trying to copulate.

All male animals will try try try, but unless the female cooperates, I think he's out of luck. I can possibly see how it might happen with primates, but I've never heard of such a thing.

And both male and female dogs will simulate humping as a dominance gesture, so don't think that counts.

WHOA--just read about dolphins. Holy cow. That is pretty coercive. However, from an evolutionary standpoint, it probably makes sense that the male who can best coerce and tire the female, then "force" her, is the best possible DNA spreader.

[Nekowolf]

From Wikipedia:

When they pair off with mating partners, often one or several drakes will end up "left out". This group will sometimes target an isolated female duck — chasing, pestering and pecking at her until she weakens (a phenomenon referred to by researchers as rape flight), at which point each male will take turns copulating with the female.

[Oaktree]

@ grumpy_otter: There are different ways that people look at it. Some people say that it isn't rape when an animal forces sex because they aren't intelligent enough for there to be choice in the matter. I disagree with this point, for the aforementioned reason that I think that animals have some capacity for intelligence.

I don't really see how dogs humping each other doesn't count. In humans, rape is often more about dominance than about sex.

[grumpy_otter]

Sorry Nekowolf--I really hate wikipedia. Did they link to the scholarly article that explains this? Oooh--even better--my next-door neighbor is an ornithologist--I'll shoot her an email. Can't believe that didn't occur to me before.

@oaktree

I think we can't really understand the animal behavior because they can't tell us why they just did what they did. But I don't think sexual coercion in the animal kingdom has anything to with human rape. Humans rape for a myriad of reasons, very few of which are purely reproductive. I don't think animals do it for a dominance or power reason--they just have the drive to reproduce, and evolution has led them to that pattern.

About dogs humping-- they'll hump any part of the other dog--it's not really sexual. And since females and neutered males will do it too--I don't think it's rape-like behavior. (Is that dog really trying to rape your leg?) It's like they are not even trying to actually penetrate the other dog--they just hop up and wiggle away. At least, that's what I see at the dog park.

I think the behavior of the "humpee" is telling--they never seem to mind too much--some will say "Yo, buddy, what are you doing?" but others will just be like "Whatever, dud, have fun."

[simbalena]

I think the difference of opinion on this topic is mostly just due to semantics.

Humans rape for a myriad of reasons, very few of which are purely reproductive. I don't think animals do it for a dominance or power reason--they just have the drive to reproduce, and evolution has led them to that pattern.

Yes but just like humans, animals could be doing it for a myriad of reasons that we can't understand.

Personally I think that everything humans do is "natural", everything that happens in the universe (and all other universes) is natural.

[Doddibot]

Human activity is supernatural! Because we were magically created in the image of the Invisible Sky Daddy.

[Oaktree]

Human activity is supernatural! Because we were magically created in the image of the Invisible Sky Daddy.

This is clearly the best explanation. :P

[grumpy_otter]

I've actually been gathering notes for years for a book I will probably never write--but anyway, the basic thesis is that most humans try to deny the "animal" side of themselves, or ignore it, and that can be dangerous. We need to understand our animal side to better control it in favor of more humane behavior.

As far as humans being "natural" or not--I think they do lots of things that are natural--but they also intentionally create toxic things that kill other parts of nature, for no other reason than convenience. I don't find that very natural. Beavers don't build dams for convenience--they build them to create a secure home. And beaver dams don't destroy the environment--they enhance it. (Yes, certainly, some small area may die, but not in the way that a giant shopping center kills)

[chickenIC]

Actually, to the people who have mentioned that the difference between humans and apes (such as chimpanzees) is 'planning ahead', it has been recently proven that they in fact DO plan ahead, as well cultural differences including taught habits (by this I mean taught to each other as opposed to taught to by humans) in certain ape troupes that are isolated to their group and not prominent in the species. In fact almost all 'only-us' theories compared to apes have pretty much been debunked.

The biggest difference between us is the vocal apparatus we use to communicate. Because their evolution only allows them to create vowel sounds, apes form of language is a mix between vocal cues and sign language, which is why most apes, especially chimpanzees and bonobos (also known as pygmy chimps, though they are a separate species) can pick up human sign language (in many cases American sign language since we don't have a universal one) when raised with humans who teach it and will in turn instruct their OWN offspring in American sign language so that they too can communicate with the scientists. They can also understand the language they were raised with (usually English) and will respond in sign language or with a keyboard where by pressing a button it says the words for them, and have a conversation with you. They are capable of doing math and have keen problem-solving abilities as well.

Looking at it that way, most of the differences between non-human primates and humans is cultural and physical. We're built differently and we have different priorities. But apes still suffer from psychological problems like we do, post-traumatic stress for instance. Baby orangutans poached to be sold on the black market, even after being rescued by rehabilitation organizations, suffer from terrible nightmares and other problems due to separation anxiety, exactly like human babies.

Also we age at about the same rate, excluding gorillas. A three year-old chimp is about as 'adult' as a three year old human child; they grow like people, not like cats and dogs. They live to be in their sixties, which would be the same as us if not for modern medicine.

My point is that with apes, the differences between us as superficial.

But to answer the main question here, our huge population (and no natural predator) makes us ecosystem destroyers. We tend to eradicate and/or demonize the most important animals in ecosystems, such as bats and wolves. By removing keystone species like them, we doom entire ecosystems for reasons such as 'they're a pest' or 'i want more deer to hunt'. We try desperately to find differences between ourselves and apes in order to separate ourselves from them, so that we can draw a line and make their problems unimportant. Racism and sexism works the same way. It's drawing a line and saying "everything over there isn't like me, I am better, I can rationalize treating them like dirt".

Sorry, this kind of became really long >_>"

EDIT: Also, APES rape for dominance and power, same as humans. Well, except for bonobos, they have sex to reduce stress and create bonds within their group. But they're the oddball of the group.

[Oaktree]

I've actually been gathering notes for years for a book I will probably never write--but anyway, the basic thesis is that most humans try to deny the "animal" side of themselves, or ignore it, and that can be dangerous. We need to understand our animal side to better control it in favor of more humane behavior.

As far as humans being "natural" or not--I think they do lots of things that are natural--but they also intentionally create toxic things that kill other parts of nature, for no other reason than convenience. I don't find that very natural. Beavers don't build dams for convenience--they build them to create a secure home. And beaver dams don't destroy the environment--they enhance it. (Yes, certainly, some small area may die, but not in the way that a giant shopping center kills)

I agree with you about the necessity of acknowledging our animal side. I think that we are capable of controlling our behavior using rationality, but it is important to know what behaviors we are capable of and what behaviors may be most tempting when we are not acting rationally.

Beaver dams actually are destructive to the environment in a sense. Ponds support fewer organisms than streams do, so the biomass of the area is reduced. Ponds do support different types of organisms, so there still is the possibility of life in that area. There is some chaos as the transition is made, however. Human activity will further decrease the carrying capacity of an area, but it will still be possible for many types of animals to live alongside humans. Insects and birds in particular are prevalent and can survive alongside humans with little effort.

When humans intentionally kill other animals for convenience, it is much like competition in the wild. If two species fill the same niche, there is bound to be fighting over resources that often leads to the death or forcible removal of one species or the other. Humans are more efficient at getting rid of or moving other species, but again, the behavior is similar to something found in nature. I think that humans have more of a responsibility to try to protect other animals, but the behavior is still a very natural one.

I think this ties back in to what I mentioned in the first paragraph: it is behavior that is natural to us, as animals, but that is impacted by our abilities as thinking animals. We have technology that gives us an edge in competition with other animals, but, when we are thinking rationally, we realize that it is detrimental to compete to the point of extinction of another species. I suppose what it comes down to is, though rather cliche, "with great power comes great responsibility." We are natural beings, as we are animals, but our rationality, as well as certain other abilities, give us both an edge over other animals and a responsibility to not abuse that edge.

[grumpy_otter]

Tree, I don't deny you have a thought-provoking point, but this is what I've observed.

(For the purposes of this point, I will define "natural" as not involving money, toxic fumes, and stuff like that that are created by humans)

I've known many, many people in my life. The happiest ones--defined as cheerful, fun, playful, seem to enjoy life, no suicide--are the ones who embrace a more natural lifestyle. Think "hippies." The LEAST happy ones I have met are the Wall Street brokers, developers, and housewives of same.

I'd love to see an actual scientific study on this.

But, in general, I think those who live in a mostly nature-embracing, capitalism-eschewing kind of world are the happiest. (unfortunately, to actually live that way in the United States, you tend to need lots of money)

[fakepeeps7]

Hippies don't commit suicide?

[Oaktree]

Otter, I consider myself pretty happy and I'm a college student (a science major at that :P). I think that your definition of happiness is biased toward demonstrative emotion. I am a fairly reserved person, so you aren't likely to see me jumping for joy, but I do feel joy. The things that make me feel happy are generally different from the things that make "hippies" feel happy, and are typically harder to achieve, but even the challenge itself makes me feel greater satisfaction than I would feel by not caring about human concerns. I would argue (and so does Aristotle) that one gains greater happiness by achievement and intellectual development. "Happiness" achieved by not caring is simply disregarding the bad, though it may still exist. Happiness achieved in spite of the bad takes the bad into consideration and goes beyond it. I'm not saying that those who lead a "natural" life aren't capable of achieving this sort of happiness, but many of them don't. I suppose the point doesn't matter to those with no interest in philosophy, as most people are satisfied with either type of happiness, but I think that your polling pool is too narrow. :) Just as an added point, doctors tend to feel the highest job satisfaction. They are among the most educated and have a difficult study and career path. Based on your criteria, this statistic should not be.

Humans are rational animals and I think it is a mistake to not take this into consideration when considering our psychology and nature. We do have base "animal" drives, but our rational minds contribute quite a lot to who we are and who we must be.

[grumpy_otter]

Peeps and tree--yeah, sure, hippies can be sad, too--I was just stating what I have observed among my friends and acquaintances. None of my hippie friends are on Prozac, for example. I'm definitely generalizing based on my own anecdotal observations (which is why I would like to see a real study).

But yeah--I don't think anyone who lives in New York City all the time can be truly happy. It is too far disconnected from nature. And yes, I am definitely biased and I hate much technology.

[Oaktree]

I also enjoy nature and prefer to live in more suburban areas, but I enjoy human achievements as well. I think that technology is good and fundamental scientific knowledge is even better. Overall, I think that it is best when there is a balance between human development and preservation of nature.

To preserve the state of nature perfectly would mean going back to the days of shorter, harder lives, with greater illness and injury. I also tend to see knowledge as good-in-itself, so the idea of going back to ignorance is cringe-worthy for me. :)

On the other hand, to turn away from nature entirely would probably be very psychologically scarring. Most people have an affinity of some sort towards nature, which makes sense because we came from a state of nature. Further, we don't currently have the scientific knowledge to support ourselves in an entirely artificial world. Whether the majority of people think so or not, we can't survive without a variety of other organisms because we don't have the means to preserve life when certain key factors (insects, bacteria, etc.) are missing.

I don't think that your average New York stockbroker or what-have-you has fully turned away from nature. Even in cities, we preserve a little bit of greenery here and there and there are still birds and insects everywhere.

[iCad]

I have to say that I kind of agree with Otter. I've experienced both sides of the coin.

I lived in "downtown" NYC for five years while I attended Juilliard in both undergraduate and graduate study. While I was quite happy there, even though it was a stressful time of my life, many of my friends and acquaintances there...were not happy at all. They would often say that what they wanted was time to themselves, but they felt it was impossible because of career and family demands and such. They would say that life was too hectic, that they wanted to slow down but they felt that they couldn't because they had bills to pay, mouths to feed, etc..

Now, I live in very rural Colorado. My neighbors are homesteaders and ranchers, living close to the land and in some cases completely "off the grid." Some generate their own power, grow their own food, homeschool their kids, etc. They also tend to be very happy people. I think it's because they do not experience the stress associated with the standard middle-to-upper-class, career-focused, "rat race" kind of life. Their lives are not significantly different than the lives that were led here in the late 1800s. They do what they do, season to season, and they are happy to do it. And I'm happy here, too. We live on a small "ranch," and as an income supplement to my music career and my roommate's art career, we raise llamas and alpacas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpaca). We shear the latter, then clean and sell the raw hair to people/companies who dye it and spin it into yarn or weave it into cloth. We live very simply and are in general quite happy. We're not "hippies," and we're not all green and "natural" and such, but we ARE fairly stressless.

I think, in the end, it's a matter of personality and outlook. Some people are born for the "rat race" life. They thrive in it, are happy living it, and they simply can't imagine a slower-paced life. But I do think that more people are sort of forced into that lifestyle. It's not that they enjoy it but that they feel obligated to live it. And I think that's what causes unhappiness.

[Mistermook]

I think being unhappy causes unhappiness too. ;)

Getting away from the poke though, I think that there's something to an economic theory for happiness. Bear in mind that there's a bit of work up to my point. :D

People want what they want, and when they don't get it they're unhappy. When people get what they want, that's happiness. Now, what you want could be "quiet, on the farm" or something like "constant struggle with lots of variety and rewards," it doesn't matter. Like any other product, you can get what you want and change your mind. You can get what you want and want more. You can have to fight for finite resources in large demand from other people, or you can get off on unrestricted public goods like "sunshine." That's all natural. People make economic lifestyle decisions from the moment they're aware - "I don't LIKE prunes, I'd rather have squash."

Like all economies though, you've got to account for everything. If you make is so that sunshine is a excludable good then you've suddenly inflicted a cost on billions of people. That's not something that anyone likes. If you kill off the bluefin tuna stock in the ocean, or exterminate the whales, you're also inflicting an economic cost on everyone, since we generally assume that though there's a cost collecting tuna it's not like tuna are kept on a farm as a property. While it's natural for people to be moderately rational selfish economic agents, it's important to note that we're not perfectly rational. Adam Smith said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." The difficulty with this economic stance is realizing that public goods are also relevant to the selfishness of the craftsman, even if those products are not directly relevant to the interests of the baker.

I'll probably never buy a goat, but if the price of goats spikes into the millions because of scarcity then that has an effect on the economy. While the fate of some amphibian that lurks in an isolated wetland might not have an enormous effect on the economy that the scarcity of goats does, there's non-zero cost that starts to add up when delicate ecologies falter. People enjoy sunlight and fresh air, and so assign value to those things. Wildlife and forests play a component to those values even if they're not directly related. If they're diminished then it's assigning a cost to everyone on the planet by small measures, and we're not universally geared to understand these sorts of things rationally. We naturally assign risk in irrational ways, being afraid of sharks more than household pets, or strangers more than family members. That's natural, but it's not rational.

[fakepeeps7]

What was the question again? :lol:

[Oaktree]

iCad: I can see that. It makes sense that different people would have different thresholds of how much nature they want in their lives. While reading your post, a couple of other thoughts occurred to me. Maybe city living is too far outside of the comfort zone of the more animal side of our psychology. While I think a lot of human behavior and development parallels the natural world, taking a city at face value, adding up all of the disparities, you have something quite a bit different from our former habitats. Most people I know who want to live in a city want to live there due to the human interaction available there. They want to live near Broadway in New York, or they want to be within walking distance of shopping, or something along those lines. I don't know if there is anyone who chooses to live in a city due to the general look and environment. I may be wrong about making a generalization of this, but I have never met anyone who wanted to live in a city for these reasons.

Mistermook: Maybe it's a little off-topic, but I don't see why it isn't rational to fear sharks more than household pets and strangers more than family. If you mean in a day to day timeline, you're less likely to encounter the former item of each pair, so that may reduce the danger, but on the basis of comparison, the shark is definitely more dangerous than the household pet and the stranger has a higher probability of being dangerous to you given the nature of human relationships. Family members in general will have the interests of the family at heart. It isn't always the case, but it usually is. A stranger isn't likely to outright harm you, but if their best interests involve something that is not in your best interests, it is more likely that they will go ahead and do something not in your best interests.

[Mistermook]

Mistermook: Maybe it's a little off-topic, but I don't see why it isn't rational to fear sharks more than household pets and strangers more than family. If you mean in a day to day timeline, you're less likely to encounter the former item of each pair, so that may reduce the danger, but on the basis of comparison, the shark is definitely more dangerous than the household pet and the stranger has a higher probability of being dangerous to you given the nature of human relationships. Family members in general will have the interests of the family at heart. It isn't always the case, but it usually is. A stranger isn't likely to outright harm you, but if their best interests involve something that is not in your best interests, it is more likely that they will go ahead and do something not in your best interests.
Definitely off-topic and my point was that people won't understand that it's irrational to fear things that statistically amount to very little risk while overstating the conditional lack of risk of things that actually do amount to credible threats/costs/potential harm. Less than 100 people worldwide have ever been attacked by sharks in a given year, constituting shark's sole contribution to risk, compared to nearly 90,000 accidents a year just involving injuries from tripping over pets (and ignoring other risk increasing potentials from pets, like attacks.) A shark might be selectively more dangerous to your imagination, but in actuality your pet is clearly a more present danger to your health. Similarly, you're much more likely to be involved in an altercation or felony committed upon you by a family member or neighbor than some random person on the street. Access, opportunity, and motive.

We're just not built in the monkey parts of our brain to know some things rationally all the time, from shark attacks to the return of value from fads (Wii anyone? How about Cabbage Patch dolls?) to even basic things like our diet. We're not completely irrational actors, but our logical basis for our rationality is flawed somewhere deep in our heads. So much so that a dangerous shark attack, a threat you've likely never faced in your life, is a subject of contention versus pet animal attacks and injuries, something that nearly everyone has had some experience with.

If you're going to establish the premise that people are natural and thus what we do is natural, it's important to note that in our natural state of natural-ness we're shitty judges of what's good and bad for us. We assign risk badly, not to mention how we naturally misunderstand value and cost sometimes. We gamble. We smoke cigarettes. We think we're not drunk when we get behind the wheel of an automotive and we murder our romantic rivals in fits of rage over people who allow romantic rivals. All natural, rationalized things that stem from irrational premises, poor risk assessment, bad critical thinking, and poor understanding of statistical realities. It's not a bad thing, since I think it probably contributes to things like hope and optimism that we're so fundamentally broken, but if you're going to establish the notion that our natural manner is good, for us or anything else, I've got to challenge that. Honestly, most of us wouldn't know what was good for us if it stood up and slapped us in the face.

[fakepeeps7]

... if you're going to establish the notion that our natural manner is good, for us or anything else, I've got to challenge that. Honestly, most of us wouldn't know what was good for us if it stood up and slapped us in the face.

But do we even know what is "natural" for us anymore? We've got thousands of years of societal constructs working against us. We've been trying to suppress our drives and instincts for millennia. At this point, would we even know "natural" if we saw it? What's the baseline "natural" or "normal" for a human being? How can we say for sure, when we've lost touch with the original "natural" state of our species? (I'm not talking about living like animals and walking around naked, either. I'm referring to the way we treat each other.)

[Oaktree]

Mistermook: I understand what you mean now. It is what I was referring to when I was talking about encountering those things on a day-to-day basis. I agree that we often don't judge risks properly, but the fact that you can use those specific examples says that our intelligence is able to help us overcome some of that misjudgment. I know I've been all over the place in this thread, but one of the things that I've come down to is that our high intelligence is part of our natural state. Not everyone makes use of it properly, but it is part of our nature that we are rational beings. It is also part of our nature that we are emotional and sometimes base our decisions on that. We have some amount of pure instinct that we will based decisions on. These aspects of our nature come to a balance in each person. Some lean more towards emotionality, some more towards rationality, and some toward instinct. I think that some of each with a greater lean toward rationality is the best ratio, but I'm also a little biased on this because that is how I stand in the scheme of things. ;)

fakepeeps7: If you accept the idea that I have come to that our natural state is reliant upon our rationality, it may be that our natural state is whatever our current state is. Society and the constructs inherent in it seem to have followed perfectly naturally from the development of our brains. Further, we make decisions based on different factors, usually something between emotionality, rationality, and pure instinct. "Suppressing" instinct may be more a matter of simply favoring other means of making decisions. It may be perfectly natural to be divided among different influences.

[fakepeeps7]

If you accept the idea that I have come to that our natural state is reliant upon our rationality, it may be that our natural state is whatever our current state is.

Whose current state, though? My current state? A psychopath's current state?

If our current state is our natural state, are we using "majority rules" criteria? How do we know that's the right natural state?

I guess what I'm trying to ask is that, if you have a kindhearted philanthropist who wants to help people and a murderer who's giving into his violent urges -- both of which are their current states -- which one is the "natural" one? Perhaps both?

That doesn't really help us if we're trying to determine the natural state of a species, though.

[Mistermook]

I think that regardless of any consideration of "natural" behavior the first and foremost consideration should "is this good for us?" We've already described plenty of examples of how people aren't exactly wowing the crowd with consistency, rationality, self-preservation, or common sense all the time. So whatever we might feel or want "naturally" is kind of suspect from the perspective of "is this a good way to be or a good thing for us to do?" That's probably why we have social behavior in the first place, to serve as a sort of collective "you're about to do something stupid" circuit breaker for idiots. Then, of course, we broke that by realizing we can manipulate idiots that way and religion and politics were born. And probably exposed mid-drift shirts for women.

Society as a whole isn't any more rational or common sense as a consequence. We kill millions of people because they're different, we watch American Idol...these are things that don't make sense in the grand scheme of the species, but are all probably perfectly natural behaviors and acceptable if you take a certain stance on natural. It makes the definition useless, sort of like philosophically chatting about whether this is reality or a dream of reality. Maybe it's important in the abstract, but in a real practical sense it's an irrelevant question unless you make it relevant by using it as an excuse to rationalize irrational behaviors. "It's perfectly natural to kill and eat things, so I'm going to kill and eat the kid next door. He's always on his skateboard, so he's annoying and probably delicious."

[Oaktree]

fakepeeps7: I suppose here is where semantics tangle things up. Technically speaking, psychopaths are psychopaths by nature, and therefore it is natural. However, I would argue that this particular state does not reflect on the "current state of humanity." Psychopaths do not perceive reality in an accurate fashion, which drastically reduces any rational ability they may have. Here is probably where it is best to at least partially depart from talking about natural states if we are going to get into ethics, which is what it seems you are heading towards. I think that ethics are intrinsically tied to our rational side, and not our emotional or instinctive side. This would seem to be supported by the fact that animals with more complex cognitive ability tend to have a greater tendency towards ethical behavior. A sea sponge has no ethical behavior, while a dog will show some level of ethical behavior, for example. If ethics are tied to our rational side, then they are still part of our natural state, but are not represented in every aspect of our natural state, which is why there are murderers, thieves, etc.

Mistermook: I agree that considerations of ethics and what is beneficial matter more than whether something is natural. I also agree that social behavior is necessary for ethical behavior. I can't say that I've fully thought through this point, but I also think that social behavior is the cause of ethical behavior. I can't think of any examples in which one would be worried about ethics if there were no other sentient life around, as ethics are generally directed towards protecting the rights of others. I don't think that ethical considerations are what first caused social behavior, though. I think that social behavior is ingrained in rationality, emotion, and instinct because there must be social behavior for purposes of species propagation, initially. Emotional attachment must have evolved, requiring social behavior for psychological fulfillment, and then our developing rationality would have caused us to consider our choices more carefully, leading to the requirement of a social system to hold everyone accountable to their actions. The latter two wouldn't necessarily have to develop in that order, but my point is that I think the development of our higher cognitive functions happened after and then in parallel with our social development.

The many moral failures of the majority are why I don't consider "natural" to be the most important factor in our behavior. I place a much higher value on the aspect of our nature that is rational than that which is emotional or instinctual. This means that I am essentially disregarding a large part of human nature. I think that it is important to be aware of those aspects of human nature, but I think that enough discipline allows our rational side to rule these other sides. This makes emotionality a poor defense for unethical behavior.

The philosophical discussion is precisely why I started the thread; I am minoring in philosophy, after all. :) I realize that it may have little bearing on practical matters, but I think that it is important to consider the flaws/bias in considering humans wholly unnatural. Ultimately, I think the topic is food for thought and going through the arguments has allowed me to think more deeply about the topic and come across some new ideas. :)

[fakepeeps7]

I think that ethics are intrinsically tied to our rational side, and not our emotional or instinctive side.

I'm not sure I totally agree with that. What about empathy? I'd class that as part of our emotional side, and it does affect our ethics. Conversely, our rational side can be used to justify hurting other people (as long as there's something in it for us).

[Oaktree]

We are capable of doing good and bad with all aspects of our beings. But when we do good from a rational perspective, we have reason to do good, which enforces the behavior. Our intent is to do good and doing so makes us more likely to understand and repeat good behavior. There is little consistency in emotional behavior. We can turn on loved ones if we are simply having a bad day, and we can do good for strangers if we are having a good day (that's not to say that doing good is a bad thing under these circumstances).

I suppose I'm arguing from meta-ethics. I think that meta-ethics are important because it provides a logical basis on which to judge actions as good or bad, and the extremity of the action. Practical ethics are also important. They are the actual effect, which is, in practical terms, all that matters. I am perfectly happy to live with people who consistently practice good ethical behavior, even if they have no good reason to do so, but I don't think that this is something that actually happens. I think that there needs to be some logical enforcement for people to behave well at all times. Even then it doesn't always work because our more emotional side can take over, but it is, in my opinion and experience, more likely to work when there is logical enforcement.