Group Banter Race to a million

IvesofMarch said:
sure, and the ones below the first 4 ?
Click to expand...
IvesofMarch said:
like I don't disagree nature has an non-human element, but where we draw the line interests me. bc, at one point, people were within nature, and now we view them as separate entities
Click to expand...

For the purposes of the one comment that I made, I was just going with the first 4. Words don't embody all their meanings simultaneously. If you consider things like the supernatural world vs the natural world, then absolutely humans are part of nature

I agree that humans were part of nature as defined by the first 4 meanings at some point. I'm not really sure that you can pinpoint where we started to remove ourselves from it, it's been more of a gradual process over millennia

But anyway, back to drunk dancing on tables!
 
youngbustyredhead said:
For the purposes of the one comment that I made, I was just going with the first 4. Words don't embody all their meanings simultaneously. If you consider things like the supernatural world vs the natural world, then absolutely humans are part of nature

I agree that humans were part of nature as defined by the first 4 meanings at some point. I'm not really sure that you can pinpoint where we started to remove ourselves from it, it's been more of a gradual process over millennia

But anyway, back to drunk dancing on tables!
Click to expand...

I mean, have we started to remove ourselves, or have we halted the definition of nature and not allowed it to evolve with us? regardless of how the world continues, relics of existence will forever be intertwined with nature, and to some extent, they are a part of nature, right?
 
IvesofMarch said:
I mean, have we started to remove ourselves, or have we halted the definition of nature and not allowed it to evolve with us? regardless of how the world continues, relics of existence will forever be intertwined with nature, and to some extent, they are a part of nature, right?
Click to expand...

Again, I think it depends on which definition of nature you're using. Human-made objects (and ofc humans themselves) are still made up of the same elements in the periodic table, so in that sense they're part of nature. And humans have evolved naturally to be able to create these things. But I still think there's a clear divide between the world of plants and wild animals and landscapes and oceans, and the world of humans going to work, driving cars and flying planes, building factories spewing out smoke, sending and receiving endless amounts of technological data, sending tiny cameras up people's colons, and so on

And um...what was I saying? There seem to be boobs
 
youngbustyredhead said:
Again, I think it depends on which definition of nature you're using. Human-made objects (and ofc humans themselves) are still made up of the same elements in the periodic table, so in that sense they're part of nature. And humans have evolved naturally to be able to create these things. But I still think there's a clear divide between the world of plants and wild animals and landscapes and oceans, and the world of humans going to work, driving cars and flying planes, building factories spewing out smoke, sending and receiving endless amounts of technological data, sending tiny cameras up people's colons, and so on

And um...what was I saying? There seem to be boobs
Click to expand...

if humans left all these institutions alone, how long before you think you would reclassify it as nature? does the presence of people impact that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top