In a natural world, does anything artificial exist?

Cyracuz wrote:

It's like Douglas Adams says in the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy: "Humans think they are smarter than dolphins because they have houses, cars, jobs, worries and ambitions while dolphins just swim around in the ocean all day. Dolphins think they are smarter for precicely the same reason"

The key difference however is that we choose our lifestyle, Dolphins don't.

Douglas could just as easily have said, "Humans think they are smarter than House Flys because they have houses, cars, jobs, worries and ambitions while House Flys just buzz around in the warm sun and eat all day. House Flys think they are smarter for precicely the same reason".

Everyone thinks Dolphins are cute, so it's easier to let the illogic of Doug's comparison slide, until you change the comparison to flies, which most people are loath to admit any similarity to.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

That leads to an interesting thought. The cosmos might in fact be full of sentient and highly-intelligent life forms who are content with their lives, and who therefore will never strive to acheive inter-stellar travel.

Right now we only have one example of a species which can choose it's lifestyle; us. Dolphins are certainly intelligent, as are many other animals, but none of them have any choice in the matter of achieving inter-stellar travel.

What we would like to know is "how many species are out there, which have the choice, and yet choose not to strive".

0 Replies

Ros, I don't think anything is truly artificial.

The same reasoning gets me into arguments about wild cats being a natural part of the Australian ecosystem. Why wouldn't they be? Just because we introduced them? What is unnatural about that?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

What we would like to know is "how many species are out there, which have the choice, and yet choose not to strive".

Thats an interesting point. But I think "striving" is a part of evolution. It would go against all we know or at least think we know for life forms not to develop into intelligent beings and start technological civilisations wouldnt it? The Universe should be, and probably is imo, full of life. Some of that should be "intelligent civilisation" recognisable to ourselves. Yet everwhere we look we find none. Are they just lazing around in some exobiological ocean, unconcerned about us? Or is it that we are alone? I think the idea that we could be alone is in some way more terrifying than the thought of us being a tasty meal for something higher up the universal food chain.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Ros, I don't think anything is truly artificial.

The same reasoning gets me into arguments about wild cats being a natural part of the Australian ecosystem. Why wouldn't they be? Just because we introduced them? What is unnatural about that?

Hi Eorl, I know how you feel. I get into the same tangled argument sometimes.

I fully understand the effect that an invasive species can have on a stable habitat, but is it really any worse if it rides in on a ship, or on a piece of driftwood?

I think it depends on the viewpoint from which you ask the question. Is an invasive species "damaging" to its new environment, or was that environment meant to be dynamic and ever changing right from the beginning. The same can be asked of particular species, should they all be saved from extinction, or is it all just part of the standard flow of extinction.

Humans exist in short timeframes when compared to evolution, and we tend to not like change, so it's not surprising that we want to save everything and make it all stay the same. In the timeframe in which we live, things will only die. It will take thousands of years (or more) for *new* things to take their place and we won't be around to enjoy that phase of the process.

All that having been said, I still believe that we humans should try to minimize our impact on the biosphere. Not because we are not part of the system, but because it's the wiser course of action to take, and making wise decisions is *also* our prerogative in the natural course of things.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
What we would like to know is "how many species are out there, which have the choice, and yet choose not to strive".
Thats an interesting point. But I think "striving" is a part of evolution. It would go against all we know or at least think we know for life forms not to develop into intelligent beings and start technological civilisations wouldnt it? The Universe should be, and probably is imo, full of life. Some of that should be "intelligent civilisation" recognisable to ourselves. Yet everwhere we look we find none. Are they just lazing around in some exobiological ocean, unconcerned about us? Or is it that we are alone? I think the idea that we could be alone is in some way more terrifying than the thought of us being a tasty meal for something higher up the universal food chain.

Fermi's Paradox is still shockingly strong. I have yet to hear of, or even image a scenario in which *some* species had not already overrun the galaxy with Universal Constructors.

I also kind of doubt that there are many species out there which are simply complacent about their situation and want to float in their ocean and enjoy the warm water. Dolphins were the flip example provided by Doug Adams, but all flipness aside, Dolphins still work for their survival. They have to catch their own food every day, escape predators, contend with other individuals in the group, and successfully reproduce and rear young. It's not all splashing in tropical water.

It seems to me that any (non-passive; animal not plant) creature evolving in an environment like that (alien or otherwise) would become ingrained with a strong sense of need and survival, just as we have. And based on that, I would guess that it would tend to "strive" beyond mere contentment, just as we do.

0 Replies

Natural or artificial?
I think this is a challenge..

http://www.spiraljetty.org/smithson-spiraljetty-top.jpg

(Robert Smithson)

0 Replies

If we assume that everything is natural because it cannot be otherwise, then the answer is: Natural

But if we assume that anything Man-Made is defined as artificial, then this Spiral Jetty is: Artificial

http://www.ac-versailles.fr/etabliss/ien-lfa/lfa/pages/pedago/artsplastiques/paysages_av/spiral%20jetty.jpg

0 Replies

Spiral Jetty is a typical case. And nowadays almost everything on earth is a "spiral jetty."

0 Replies

satt_fs wrote:

Spiral Jetty is a typical case. And nowadays almost everything on earth is a "spiral jetty."

I'm not sure I understand what you're implying Satt.

How would you define that spriral jetty, natural or artificial?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

How would you define that spriral jetty, natural or artificial?

Well, actually it is an open question.. :wink:
In my opinion, today, everything on earth is artificial that follows the natural law.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I would guess that it would tend to "strive" beyond mere contentment, just as we do.

That is exactly my point. Yet we dont see any fruit of said striving.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
I would guess that it would tend to "strive" beyond mere contentment, just as we do.
That is exactly my point. Yet we dont see any fruit of said striving.

My first point was that most creatures with the ability to stive, probably do.

That having been said, you're right, it still leaves us with Fermi's Paradox; alive and kicking.

This galaxy is only 100k light years across (approx), so with Universal Constructors moving at only 1/10'th the speed of light it could have been colonized in just a million years. It could have been colonized 65 times over, just since the dino's went extinct.

Granted not every place has life, and not all life is intelligent, and not all intelligence is technological, and not all technology leads to Universal Constructors.... but all it should take is one. Just one. Out of all those stars and planets and moons and moonlets, deeper than sand on a beach. We should be swarming with UC's. But we're not. I find it shocking.

0 Replies

Rosborne, how can you presume to know anything about the preferences of dolphins. Or houseflies for that matter. Choice is overrated.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Rosborne, how can you presume to know anything about the preferences of dolphins. Or houseflies for that matter. Choice is overrated.

Saying that Dolphins and Fly's don't have the choice to advance technologically doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me Cyr. Does it really seem like a stretch to you?

0 Replies

Well, no. But it's a fun thought.

I've always thought that self-righteousness is the least attractive trait of the human species. We are full of ourselves, and nothing good has ever come of that Smile

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Well, no. But it's a fun thought.

I've always thought that self-righteousness is the least attractive trait of the human species. We are full of ourselves, and nothing good has ever come of that

The bad comes with the good. We're also the only creature that bears the burden of the knowledge of our own mortality, as well as judgement and reason. If the other animals could talk, they might say it's a wonder any of us are sane at all.

0 Replies

I like that you say "the other animals". There is a kind of cincerity in it. Smile

But you are right. The bad comes with the good, and the good comes of the bad. We learn by failing.

But I wonder if any other animals would consider us sane at all if they could talk Smile

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

But I wonder if any other animals would consider us sane at all if they could talk

I've always been amazed at how fine a line there is between sanity and insanity. It seems to me that all human beings teeter on the edge of reason all their lives, even if they maintain balance that whole time. Even the best of us "see things our way", "rationalize our choices", "dwell on problems", fight to control our own behavior (always trying to lose weight, or exercise, but never doing it... it should be just as easy as flipping a switch). We remember things incorrectly, create rumors, imagine illnesses, and choose to believe things without evidence (ghosts, aliens, gods, demons, angels). And those behaviors are all considered normal. Smile

0 Replies

I know what you mean. Sane is merely the compromise of the many to operate as one. It is a scale with no degrees, and the decicive factor is how much of your energy your troubles demand. If your productiveness is not hindered by your issues you are considered as healthy as a new born baby.

Could it be, i wonder sometimes, that all the little compulsions and mental disorders and torments we battle are the reactions of sane minds to and insane world?

0 Replies

In a natural world, does anything artificial exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know