Humans are natural also

[retina]

I read almost everyday about someone saying the things humans do are artificial: Artificial satellites, artificial global warming, artificial hearts, etc. <here, artificial is meant in the sense as being non-natural, i.e. made or done by humans>.

BUT, I think this is wrong.

I think most reasonable people will agree that the original development of humans is completely natural. Something that is due to natural processes. Whether by evolution or a god or a flying spaghetti monster or whatever, most agree that humans are a naturally occurring species.

So now, how can it be possible that, say, a cat is acting naturally if it manages to eliminate all the world's mice, but if, instead, humans were to kill all the world's mice then it is artificial (non-natural)?

We are natural also, so anything we do is a product of natural processes and it then follows that all the things we make and invent are also natural.

This means that global warming (if is it real) is a natural process of higher species doing their natural things to modify their habitat to make themselves more comfortable (at least in the short term). Putting a probe on Mars with a microbe and "contaminating" the planet is also just the result of natural processes that happen when species with communication abilities get curious about other places. If we all somehow get into a nuclear war and manage to exterminate ourselves then that is also just the result of natural processes taking place. And presumably the next to rise in our place may well get themselves into the same situation.

This doesn't mean that everything we do is desirable, or even sensible, just that it is natural. We are natural, the things we do are natural, the things we make are natural.

Some consequences: The earth has one natural satellite? Wrong, it now has thousands, we added many just in the last few decades. White sugar is artificial and therefore a 'bad' food? Wrong, it is natural, tastes nice and gives us energy. Losing a limb and using a wooden/steel/composite replacement is artificial? Wrong, it is also a natural limb, it was just not there at birth, but now is likely to be there until death.

And, just to be in keeping with things here, finding really big primes is natural and therefore there is nothing wrong in that.

[CRGreathouse]

Is anything artificial?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by retina

I read almost everyday about someone saying the things humans do are artificial:

Like most common words, "natural" and "artificial" have different meanings in different contexts.

The apparent discrepancies/contradictions you present are mere wordplay resulting from your (unintentional, I presume) combining of incompatible definitions in some context. They can all be straightened out nonmysteriously by careful application of proper definitions for each context.

Artificial satellites,

There are natural satellites, such as our Moon, Mars' Phobos and Deimos, Jupiter's many satellite, and so on. Sputnik 1 and its manmade successors that became satellites only because they were boosted into orbit by manmade rockets are not in that category; they are called artificial. This is a clear distinction, not arbitrary.

artificial global warming,

There is a portion of global warming that is caused by events over which man has no influence, such as radiation from our Sun; it is natural -- it would be happening regardless of whether the human species existed. There is another portion which is being caused by manmade effects such as deliberate widescale combustion of carbon-containing compounds. It is usually referred to as anthropogenic. The "A" in "AGW" stands for "anthropogenic", not "artificial".

artificial hearts,

... which, in contrast to natural hearts are constructed of nonliving materials (so far, that is).

etc. <here, artificial is meant in the sense as being non-natural, i.e. made or done by humans>.

No, that is not a correct or sufficient simplification when one is arguing on the levels of word meanings on which you have based this thread.

I think most reasonable people will agree that the original development of humans is completely natural. Something that is due to natural processes. Whether by evolution or a god or a flying spaghetti monster or whatever, most agree that humans are a naturally occurring species.

Wrong. A "god" is a supernatural entity, not a natural one. There is no evidence that any god actually exists in nature (other than as an idea in human minds), so a "god" is NOT natural.

So now, how can it be possible that, say, a cat is acting naturally if it manages to eliminate all the world's mice,

But that's not possible. To say that it is possible is to talk about something that cannot happen in nature (unless one tries to torture the definitions of "cat", "mice", and so on). It's NOT natural.

but if, instead, humans were to kill all the world's mice then it is artificial (non-natural)?

... because that's exactly what it would be: non-natural.

We are natural also

Are you including Louise Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Brown) in "we"?

so anything we do is a product of natural processes

Was World War II "natural"? If it hadn't occurred, my father would almost certainly have never met my mother at a USO club far from his home.

and it then follows that all the things we make and invent are also natural.

So, you've managed to drain most meaning out of your statements by using such different meanings of "natural" in juxtaposition as though they were synonymous. You're just playing a word game.

[retina]

A word game? Not really. I stated the meaning I was intending.

Why do you single out humans as being the only non-naturals influence upon this world? Other animals also have an impact upon the environment, but they, for some reason, are considered natural and the things they do are also considered natural. Why must humans be put in as a special case of a non-natural doer?

My argument is that just because something is human made then that is not a proper reason to single it out as being not part of normal worldly processes,

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by retina

I stated the meaning I was intending.

I'm not disputing that, but I'm saying the effect was a word game rather than a substantial observation.

Why do you single out humans as being the only non-naturals influence upon this world? Other animals also have an impact upon the environment, but they, for some reason, are considered natural and the things they do are also considered natural. Why must humans be put in as a special case of a non-natural doer?

Why must you deny the meaning of "artificial"?

From Webster's Third New International Dictionary:

"artificial ... 1 : contrived through human art or effort and not by natural causes detached from human agency : relating to human direction or effort in contrast to nature"

That's why you "read almost everyday about someone saying the things humans do are artificial", as your leadoff sentence states -- because that's the definition of "artificial"!!!

When you then say that you think that is wrong you are, in effect, saying you want to disagree with the primary meaning of the word "artificial", thus setting yourself on the path of a word-game rather than of substantive discourse.

My argument is that just because something is human made then that is not a proper reason to single it out as being not part of normal worldly processes,

By your own saying that "something is human made", you yourself have just pointed out a significant distinction between that thing and other, non-human-made things: that it is artificial.

[By the way, not everyone who points out that something is human-made would be implying that it is not part of normal worldly processes. As with "natural", the meanings of "normal" and "worldly" are not singular; they depend on context, and might either include or exclude that which is "human made", depending on the context. Confusing those different meanings, or insisting that there is only one meaning in each case, leads to word games.]

If you don't want to "single it out as being not part of normal worldly processes", then don't start off your own sentence by singling it out as human-made. You didn't mention any other property of the "something"! The only quality of the "something" that you write about is precisely that it is "human made"! You yourself are singling out that one particular property, among all others, to explicitly describe. You have given us not one single property of the "something" except that it is "human made", but you then want folks not to pay attention to the only property you have described?

It is useful to have, in our language, ways of making various distinctions between the properties of things. One of those distinctions, among the many different distinctions one might draw between the properties of any one thing, is whether or not it is man-made. Your argument, if taken seriously, boils down to objecting to the use of language to make that particular distinction.

If you don't want to distinguish between that which is man-made and that which is not man-made, then ... simply don't make that distinction in your own writing.

You can't reasonably expect any of the rest of us to stop employing a useful feature of our human language, but you are free to do so if you really want to. Just don't complain about a practice that you yourself are employing, as long as you employ it.

- - -

There is no real contradiction in saying that something that is artificial is non-natural (human made), but is also natural (part of the real world) -- because there are two different meanings of "natural" being used there; one excludes that which is artificial, the other includes that which is artificial. To pretend that there is only a single meaning of "natural" used in that example is just a game.

[retina]

Okay, I accept that meaning of artificial. But I feel that it has a hidden connotation attached that makes many people feel that things we humans do are against the normal processes of this world/universe.

From here I am now trying to avoid the use of words like 'natural' and 'artificial'. The point I was (rather poorly) trying to make was that we are part of all things, not separate from them. But when we attach those labels in describing events and/or objects it gives the impression that it is somehow 'wrong' or 'bad' and thus should be avoided because, say, no other animals do/have it.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by retina

Okay, I accept that meaning of artificial. But I feel that it has a hidden connotation attached that makes many people feel that things we humans do are against the normal processes of this world/universe.

Yes, I wondered whether you might have been intending to discuss that: connotations.

Some of the thinking that humans are not a proper part of the "normal"/"natural" world would also be connected to thinking that humans were "created" through some supernatural means rather than as part of natural evolution.

... such as if one believes that "Man was created to have dominion over Nature".

But when we attach those labels in describing events and/or objects it gives the impression that it is somehow 'wrong' or 'bad' and thus should be avoided because, say, no other animals do/have it.

Yes, there is also the thinking that humans are somehow inferior to other animals because what we do is often "wrong" or "bad". [OTOH, lions have been observed to have a far higher murder (i.e., lion killing another lion) rate in their natural settings than any human city has.] Probably also often linked to ideas of supernatural creation and "original sin".

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

OTOH, lions have been observed to have a far higher murder (i.e., lion killing another lion) rate in their natural settings than any human city has.

Cool! Linky?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Cool! Linky?

Read it in a book 20-30 years ago -- by someone who knew about lions. IIRC the average observed yearly lion-by-lion murder rate was about 1 in 90 (almost always male-on-male) among adults, and that did _not_ include the customary infanticide practice of a new male lion's killing all the previously-sired cubs after taking over a pride from a vanquished male, so that the females would raise only his offspring. (Nor did the 1 in 90 rate include wounds inflicted on vanquished males that later led to death; it was just the cases where one lion actually killed another directly.)

Googling the phrase

lion murder rate

turns up lots of references to Detroit, the New York City library, and Trenton NJ, but doesn't seem promising enough to persist in checking past the first 140 hits. Googling the phrase

"lion-on-lion" murder rate

took a different, but non-helpful turn.

[CRGreathouse]

Well, it's neat to know regardless.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Well, it's neat to know regardless.

But beware of turning it into an urban legend.