On the Nature of Nature

An exploration of my thought processes translated into sentences with grammatical cohesion. This is the type of nearly-useless stuff I think about when I'm on auto-pilot at work or watching a show that bores me. "Natural" is a confusing word to me. The definition is as follows:

1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. These two parts contradict each other in my mind. Humans do 'exist in' and 'were cause by' nature. Humans seem like an obvious part of nature to me - just not the definition that is in the head of everyone else.

When I can't break an argument intuitively, I do something in my mind that helps me logic it out. I try to find a line to draw. Here, the definition is implying that human kind is not a part of nature. Surely apes and chimps are, yes? The line separating natural and not natural starts somewhere between humans and apes. Would neanderthals have been considered a part of nature? I'm guessing most people would say no. Push the line up further. Where does the line go? There was no moment in time when the human race was born, or even a decidedly human-like creature emerged. They simply came to be over many generations. Therefore, it is impossible to place a line anywhere. That shows me there is some fault with the argument that excludes humans from nature, though I can't yet name it. The word 'arbitrary' is unceasing in its insistence that it deserves to be named at some point in this discussion.

If you see an ant farm - a structure made by creatures with (limited) intelligence, you'd say it's a part of nature. A beavers dam. A birds nest. Why is a human house considered different? Because we used tools to make it? No. An ancient clay hut made with no tools used is not "nature". A tool an animal uses - rocks to break open fruit or sticks to get honey out of a hole - IS considered "nature". Humans are animals who happen to be smarter than every other species on this planet. Do we attempt to draw a line below humanity based on intelligence? No. If that were the case, babies would be considered a part of nature when their mothers were not.

I am fairly positive (based on intuition alone) that aliens exist. I'm also fairly positive that if we ever meet them, it will be thousands of years in the future at the earliest. That being said, aliens would be above the line of "natural" next to "humans", right? So the definition is further flawed. Just because alien contact is extremely unlikely doesn't make it okay that their existence falsifies the definition.

And for the record, humans make definitions to fit what we think, not the other way around. The fact that the definition says something doesn't mean anything if the majority of people perceive and use the word differently. Example: "Gay". Not once in the definitions of Webster do you see a meaning defined as "hurtfully intentioned insult used by twats". There are a few reasons I think I have a problem with this 'nature' word and definition. We might as well define it as simply "everything in the universe excluding humans or other intelligent life or their creations", because that's how people actually use the word. If you tell a person to show you 'nature', they'll open up their arms to the rolling hills and woodlands behind their parents house, but not because it contains no humans, but because to them the definition of "natural" is any piece of land not yet touched by infrastructure.

I have a passion for words, and furthermore, words that have a clear definition. There is too much opinion following the word "natural" that the definition can't explicitly make conclusions of. Would aliens be of 'nature'? A garden? A crude garden made by chimps? An ancient garden now untended and overgrown? A shelter made by chimps? A 50,000 year old stone axe? A 2 million year old sharpened stone? What about a flower brought into a home. The room isn't natural, the pot isn't natural, but what of the flower itself? Is it still natural, though humans have shaped its current existence? What of climate-change? Most people consider all weather natural, even though we are absolutely undeniably shaping it in an extremely bad way. One could say we 'create' earthquakes when we decide fracking in an area is a good idea. Those are technically man made, yet "natural", by most peoples measure. In the end, I think humans are special for plenty of reasons, but being separate from nature isn't one of them. We're animals. Some animals make tools. Some build things. Some can even communicate, albeit, only we have actual language. We're just the best on the planet at doing all these things. I don't say this with hippy under-tones, but we are unquestionably a part of nature.

More than having a love of words and good definitions, I oppose the furtherance (yes, that's a word) of the apparent psychological need for humans to constantly think themselves better than they are. Dunning-Kruger, Ultracrepidarianism, schadenfreude, petty need to resort to ad hominem, strawman, and other fallacies rather than think rationally about an opponents argument, affectations and lack of modesty, lack of will to communicate and cooperate, negative generalizations, dismissiveness, patronization, misogyny, racism, and other discrimination (thinking others bad is another way to think yourself better), etc. These are all rooted in the fierce will humans have to believe themselves awesome. It's an extremely damaging and dangerous part of the human psyche that I don't think we'll be rid of any time soon. Had everyone the perception that all men truly are created equal (including our own damn selves), I believe the world would be a lot less full of aggression. Maybe that's my real problem with this definition. Or maybe the real problem is that I'm pedantic enough to have a problem with the accepted definition of a word.. I must ponder further for that answer.

#nature #natural