gcameron

I always thought of it as brain size reaching a point of critical mass and sort of running away with itself. Humans certainly possess traits no other animals do, but if you set the resolution wide enough, I think you can perceive humans and their doings as just another aspect of "nature."

As for being able to go home again, I'll take my apartment over most animals' abodes any day of the week, thank you very much.

Jabu Khan

Could it be we have taxed the genetic elasticity of these crops to their limits? Or maybe its the fact that we now have these crops which we cast a great deal of aside because they now yield more food then we can consume so whats the benefit in improving them.

simian

Just a quick comment, with no time to find the background information myself. Wild rice, at least as a commercial domestic crop, is only a few decades old. I think it was the 1970s when MN made it a commercially viable crop (which somebody in CA then took - there should be law suit information available).

Simian

Deke

Albert C writes:Everything about our behavior screams that we’re not at all natural and do not fit into Nature’s scene.

OUR behavior? You mean the behavior of certain cultures...it wasn't all that long ago when we Western Europeans were destroying the cultures native to north america - cultures whose very essence screamed out "we're entirely natural we fit into nature's scene".

Please agree with me that the degree to which human beings "fit into nature" is largely based on the culture, and time, into which they're born. This would imply that our relation to 'nature' is not based on some intrinsic "anti-nature" quality of homo sapiens, but rather cultural values.

Currently, most human cultures do not value 'nature' beyond what it supplies to us for commercial reasons - which is an unfortunate side effect of the Judeo-Christian mythos that nature is subservient to us, placed here FOR us, but that's a different story. Anywho, things change and it's entirely likely that future human cultures will return once again to a value system based on an integral relationship with its natural surroundings.

MHO,

Deke

Albert Cipriani

Dear Deke,
No human culture fits into Nature. Not even wild animals fit into Nature. How can we or they when Nature is nothing but the evolutionary principle of naturalism, of might makes right, of mortal competition and the irrational drive to reproduce before death does its part?

Your Politically Correct misinterpretation of this metaphysical truth is hopelessly naïve. So I will not agree with you “that the degree to which human beings ‘fit into nature’ is largely based on the culture, and time, into which they're born.”

Exploiting nature is the result of common sense. The Judeo-Christian tradition doesn’t get credit for what it merely reinforced.

Have you considered that alternative? If Nature is not exploited by man, guess what, man gets exploited by Nature. It’s that simple. Nature is a dog-eat-dog world. The only question it poses to us is: Do you want to be the dog or the dog meat? Choose wisely. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Deke

Albert writes: No human culture fits into Nature. Not even wild animals fit into Nature.

These statements have me a bit stumped. I suppose we need to define, and agree upon, what is meant by “fits into nature”. Some definitions of nature could include:

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.
3. Theology: Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.

But you stated that Nature (why the capital “N”?) is: “…nothing but the evolutionary principle of naturalism, of might makes right, of mortal competition and the irrational drive to reproduce before death…”

What about water? Is water not ‘natural’? And is water engaged in a mortal competition for survival? I would argue that the term nature needs to include all things perceived to exist in the universe…at least the material things. And since human beings are included in this set of things, I argue that we ‘fit in’ no more or less than a petrified tree, a moon rock, or a helium atom.

And also, the drive to produce offspring is irrational? I’d think it would have to be one of the more rational drives living things could possess.

Anyway, all of this said, all human cultures manipulate their environment in various ways. Some clear out vast areas of land, and erect upon these cleared areas huge cities of iron and stone. Some just hunt and peck, and do not manipulate their environment much past what is needed to do so (hunt and peck that is). Good examples (extremes admittedly) are the cultures of New York City, and the Inuit Eskimos of Aleutian Islands. When I hear the term “fits into nature”, I would state that relatively speaking, the Inuit fit “more” into nature than do New Yorkers. Not because New Yorkers are less ‘natural’ (how can any material thing be unnatural?), but because the environment in which their culture lives, is considerably more ‘man-made’ than is the environment in which the Inuit culture does its thing. This is the concept to which I am referring by the phrase ‘fits into nature’.

Can you agree with me that given this definition, human cultures indeed fit into nature?

Albert tells me: Your Politically Correct misinterpretation of this metaphysical truth is hopelessly naïve.

There’s a metaphysical truth I’m misinterpreting?

I wrote: Most human cultures do not value 'nature' beyond what it supplies to us for commercial reasons - which is an unfortunate side effect of the Judeo-Christian mythos that nature is subservient to us, placed here FOR us.

Albert replied: Exploiting nature is the result of common sense.

I would agree, all living things need to ‘exploit’ other things in some fashion to survive. Plants exploit dirt, birds exploit worms, and the Sacramento Kings need to exploit the Dallas Mavericks in game 3 on Saturday =) Human population has taken a dramatic turn upward in the last hundred years or so, and without some self-leveling, it’s not unlikely that our numbers will reach a boiling point – that is, a point at which the earth will not be able to sustain the things we ‘exploit’ to survive. And on the way, we’ll likely destroy most other living things. Is it ‘common sense’ (to steal your phrase) to ignore this, and instead live according to the idea that an unseen God above placed the earth here for humans to “subdue” it? To me, that is not common sense, it’s irresponsibility.

Albert finishes with: If Nature is not exploited by man, guess what, man gets exploited by Nature. It’s that simple. Nature is a dog-eat-dog world. The only question it poses to us is: Do you want to be the dog or the dog meat? Choose wisely. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Apparently humans are ‘unnatural’ to you, since you refer to humans as being outside of nature. Apparently homo sapiens are at war with nature? This is what I’m talking about Albert…one needs to look no further than the transformation of North America at the hands of Judeo-Christians to see the effects this way of thinking has on things not human.

The mindset seems to be: “We’re #1 and to hell with everything else, heck, even evolution supports this idea.”

At some point the earth is going to say, “Yeah…umm, you humans, that whole idea that some magical being placed me here for you was, well, it was inaccurate…and by the way, I’m just about done supplying you with the things you need to survive, so live it up for now.”

MHO,

Deke