Nature vs Artifice

[Ace42X]

In the socialist thread, me and Q-drop were in disagreement about the line where nature stops and artifice begins. This had fallen to the back of my head, and while I was having a bath, it jumped out.

na·ture Audio pronunciation of "nature" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nchr)
n.

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.
4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to nature.
10. The processes and functions of the body.

vs

ar·ti·fi·cial Audio pronunciation of "artificial" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärt-fshl)
adj.

1.
1. Made by humans; produced rather than natural.
2. Brought about or caused by sociopolitical or other human-generated forces or influences: set up artificial barriers against women and minorities; an artificial economic boom.
2. Made in imitation of something natural; simulated: artificial teeth.
3. Not genuine or natural: an artificial smile.

Q-drop was arguing that innovation was in "human nature" and thus anything produced by humans is "natural."

Clearly this is at odds with what "artificial" means.

So where does one end, and the other begin?

"Natural conception" is a process of creating a baby, made by two humans. It is not "artificial" because the humans do not actually construct the baby, they merely initiate a process by which the embryo is constructed by internal processes, not human intervention.

Hence the distinction between copulation and "artificial insemination."

And, if all human functions are "a part of nature" - what, if anything, can be "unnatural" ?

Is genetic engineering "unnatural"? - and if you consider genetically modified humans to be "other than" human (different to homo sapiens) - does that mean we will need a new word for "artificial" - IE something made by an "artificial" organism? Is something created by AI thus "artificial" or "pseudo-artificial" or even "super-artificial" ? Does it go beyond artificiality?

If Q-drops assertion is correct (that all of mankind's endeavours are a NATURAL function of innate nature-inspired biological processes) - would a totally virtual world, constructed by man (the very epitome of "artificial") still qualify as "natural" ? Would, by extension, any activities within this virtual world (even creating a 'sub' virtual world - even further removed from the "material world" that we currently inhabit) qualify as "natural" ?

What is "unnatural" and does "unnatural" by definition have to be artificial?

[SobaViolence]

i think that it would be the fist criterium for artificiality if something was man-made.

natural is synonymous(sp?) with organic.

[Ace42X]

i think that it would be the fist criterium for artificiality if something was man-made.


natural is synonymous(sp?) with organic.


That is the correct spelling of "synonymous" - although I think you meant "criterion."

And can there be something "man made" that is not "unnatural" / "artificial" ?

Would a man-mind (artificial) organic object (genetically engineered) qualify as natural?

[D_Raay]

The words "natural" and "unnatural" have always been very popular with moralists, because the invocation of nature is much more effective than an appeal to mere propriety or even morality. Nature does not seem to be subject to human whim and caprice. Therefore it can be presented as an objective, truly impartial authority, an infallible final arbiter in questions of right and wrong. A natural morality can claim to be unchangeable, eternal, and universally valid. By the same token, those who base their moral judgments on nature can imagine themselves to be free of personal bias. In their view, nature itself embodies the rules by which we should live. The intentions of nature can be found with the help of right reason, and once we have found them, we are also obliged to follow them. Only natural actions are moral.


However, this argument rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of both nature and morality. Nature has no intentions, and there is no morality in denying that we are personally responsible for our values. Man is the master of nature and molds it according to his own shifting self-interest. Thus, he encourages or prevents natural occurrences as he sees fit and constantly uses one law of nature to defy another. Indeed, his very life depends on his refusal to let nature take its course. If human beings accepted only that which "comes naturally", they would all end up like a certain eccentric saint, Simeon Stylites, who rejected soap and water and finally had his entire body covered with festering sores. When some of the maggots which fed in these sores fell to the ground, Simeon picked them up and replaced them saying: "Eat what God has given you!"


Fortunately, most people have sense enough not to follow this pious example. They know that human progress has always depended on human disregard for nature "as it is". The history of man is the history of the transformation of nature. In short, insofar as man is a civilized creature, he lives in a world of his own making.

[Ace42X]

Indeed, Nietzsche was fond of a "natural" morality. He saw it as the real alternative to an absolute morality as embodied by religion.

[Qdrop]

let's look a this from a non-human perspective.

is a bird's nest UNNATURAL?

it does not grow in nature on it's own....it must be built by the bird.
that is an act of engineering, is it not?

compare that with a human building, say, a house.
is that house now UNNATURAL (as well as the act of engineering)?

if any action to engineer, build, or alter the environment is *unnatural*....then the argument can be made that virtually every species on the planet engages in *unnatural* activity....
which then makes *natural activity* moot....a mere ideal that the creatures existing in nature do not live up to.

[sam i am]

Why is it necessary to debate this point in the first place?

Nature obviously functions outside and within human activity.

Artifice is only available through "natural" means, as humans do not have the ability to create life outside of "natural" processes.

Humans cannot take any combination of organic or inorganic compounds and spontaneously breathe life into them. Said compounds are not self-aware or self-replicating.

Human constructs of "artificial" beings (robots, et al) are not self-replicating or self-aware, yet.

If and/or when humans can create LIFE, then this debate becomes much more interesting. Even then, though, following basic theology of all the major religions, one could still argue that the ABILITY to create life still came from one (or many) ultimate CREATOR(s) - please note I only include the plurals to appease any polytheists in the crowd.