Is civilization of nature or contrary to nature?

Contrary to, that is its very basic feature

Pretty natural. Plenty of organisational animals out there who live in hierarchical, social packs. Lions, apes, dolphins, even ants. Mankind, being the most sentient and intelligent of all animals, also has the most advanced social organisation: civilisation.

Humans are of nature. Unless you believe in supernatural forces acting upon us, civilization is natural.

>latin america
>not western

Is anything contrary to nature? Is veganism contrary to nature? Is anti-natalism contrary to nature? Is cutting off your balls contrary to nature? Is polluting the Earth to the point where Earth can no longer support life and all known life-forms are eradicated from the Universe also contrary to nature?

Or are these "of nature" just because they exist within this conceivable Universe?
If they are contrary to nature then does that not also imply humans as a species are contrary to nature?

circular reasoning

Well, humans are from nature. Therefore, everything we do is from nature. Where do you draw the divide of what's natural or not?

Literally fucking circular reasoning
>well let's start at the end and say humans are of nature
>that means everything is of nature including anti-natalism

It's the result of space faring beings interbreeding with humans thousands of years ago creating the master race who have a genetic compulsion to rejoin their ancestors in space.

perhaps the big bang was the scattering of One universal consciousness and time is merely the observation of regenesis formation process of this

What isn't nature then?

Babarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilisation is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance.
And babarism must always ultimately triumph.

Something actively adversarial to nature

>impyling they didnt just drop one of their UFO shit cannisters onto a dead earth

No, civilization is the antithesis of nature, simply because of how it functions.

It has two important components
1. Turning biology on its head. This means either removing the biological incentive for an action or adding a cultural one. The best example of this would probably be Sex. Instead of procreation, people use contraception and all forms of birth control so they can have sex PRECISELY without the procreation. Another example would be food. Instead of simply eating for nutrition, civilized people change and treat their food in a million different ways (often very unefficient ones) to get something that has cultural value, but no more nutritional (biological) value.
This of course doesn't mean people aren't still influenced by their instincts and biological needs, but "civilization" superimposes these with the above mechanisms.

2. Manipulating or domesticating nature in order to make it controllable. This is fairly obvious and includes and includes such things as agriculture, domestication of animals but also (I can expand on this if you like) shamanism and religion in general.

t. zizek

When we create medicine that allows people with hereditary, genetic diseases to survive and reproduce, is that not, by definition, contrary to nature?

And what would you define as adversarial to nature?

see

>"Why is there so much cruelty in this natural world, God works in mysterious ways"
>"How is there so much civilization in this natural world, I guess nature works in mysterious ways"

s p o o k e d

But medicine is just using things found in nature to cure something natural. What part of it is unnatural?

Of. Civilization is an emergent property of human nature.

Because its unnatural to prolong the lives of those unfit to live and reproduce. You are artificially selecting biologically negative traits to survive that otherwise would be weeded out by natural selection. An example of this is heart disease and hereditary diabetes.

The same way asceticism is adversarial to natural pressures. The same way anti-natalism is adversarial to natural pressures.

I feel like many of you in this thread are succumbing to circular reasoning. You want the conclusion to be that civilization is of nature because of bias towards the implications of that conclusion. It seems very clear to me that civilization is contrary to nature. That doesn't mean it can't exist within the Universe. The same way that general relativity and quantum field theory are antithetical to each other can nature and civilization be antithetical to each other. This makes no presupposition about the source of the beginning of the Universe. I feel like many of you are importing motif to the people who hold the idea of civilization being contrary to nature.

If civilization is contrary to nature then whence did civilization arise? What unnatural event or force inserted civilization into the natural world?

No clue.

So then the rise of civilization among humans occurred naturally?

Anything that we create is by definition natural, we extract and mold everything from nature. There's no such thing as "unnatural" if anything happened, it was because of nature itself. Everything that happens within our natural laws of the universe is by definition a product of nature.

Unethical or uncommon =/= unnatural

you've come to this conclusion through circular reasoning

Not necessarily

Show me ONE example in nature other than humans where a species will artificially select individuals with unfit traits and help them survive and reproduce rather than let them die and be weeded out by natural selection. How is this natural? You are presupposing that civilization/human consciousness is derived solely from nature and thus, through circular reasoning, constructing flawed evidence to try to justify your biased claims.

Tell me then, what is natural, and what isn't. Don't waste time making an infinite list, also, since molding nature could be considered unnatural, every chemical reaction whitout an outer influence should by your definition be unnatural?

Also, humanity is unique as a species to us right now, show me another species as advanced as us, and maybe then we can compare what you regard as natural.

What is civilization?

It is in our nature to want to grow grain instead of starve, it is in our nature to form gangs of armed men, it is in our nature to gain territory and form little fiefdoms, so yes, civilization is of nature

Many would agree that dolphins are just as advanced as we are in intelligence.

Aristotle defines a nature as "a source or cause of being moved and of being at rest in that to which it belongs primarily".[1] In other words, a nature is the principle within a natural raw material that is the source of tendencies to change or rest in a particular way unless stopped. For example, a rock would fall unless stopped. Natural things stand in contrast to artifacts, which are formed by human artifice, not because of an innate tendency. (The raw materials of a bed have no tendency to become a bed.) In terms of Aristotle's theory of four causes, the word natural is applied both to the innate potential of matter cause and the forms which the matter tends to become naturally.[2]

Is asceticism of nature? Is anti-natalism of nature?

Dolphins aren't as advanced as us, and Aristotle was unaware of the world as we know it today in almost every way possible.

Dolphins are at the apex of natural advancement within their environment. They have no physical need to advance any further.

Are you fucking stupid? Highly resistant microbes already reached their apex form to resist their hazardous enviroments, doesn't mean they are as advanced as us.

Anyone that argues that dolphins are on par with humans, is literally retarded, and you have derailed the argument and didn't respond my questions because you know I'm right and defining what's natural is of no use.

For fucks sakes you even quoted Aristotle, a guy that thought everything was composed of 4 elements.

You're very intellectually dishonest

You should try to look at things as objectively as possible and to stop using circular reasoning to reach conclusions

Why is it unnatural? Because "artificial selection" says that old people should die? Why not have medicine that helps people continue to live normal, possibly quite productive lives. Doesn't this increase our fitness as a species?

this

the rise of self-consciousness, which christians say happened because eve at an apple she wasn't supposed to. darwin would say a monkey bumped his head one too many times, ect.

tribalism is more natural than civilization, but humans like yachts too much to realize we don't need money.

It decreases our fitness because you are allowing less fit traits to survive and reproduce to be passed on to their offspring collectively decreasing the genetic fitness of our species

Microbes are much more metabolically advanced than us. Arguably they've gone through more evolution than us as well (both by means of being older and having a shorter generation time, allowing for better fine tuning and agility.)

You are telling me I'm intelectually dishonest, when you were the one quoting someone that is of no use to the argument at hand, and making bold and outright wrong claims. While my position is one and only one, "everything is natural".

Also, I can't possibly use circular reasoning when I don't make a distinction between natural and unnatural, everything that has been created within the laws of nature that rule the Universe, is by definition "natural", or a byproduct of the Universe.

Thanks for proving my point.

Just because you are more advanced in some form, doesn't mean you are an equal. This is certainly true when comparing literal microbes to human beings.

>inb4 some ridiculous rambling about relativity

not that guy, but most things made by man are unnatural, like cars and planes, because nature can't make these these things. nature makes food and water, and air for us to breathe and decay for things to grow. we don't need the fancy veneer which civilization provides for us. every other animal on earth knows this, only humans stick out like a sore thumb.

Does the car spontaneously create itself? No, humans made it, from resources found in the Universe, therefore it's natural. Humans aren't outside of nature. If to be considered natural something must have always existed in the Universe, then nothing is natural, because even the Universe itself didn't exist at some point. Or maybe you'll argue that every evolution and adaptation is unnatural, simply because it didn't existed.

Let me put this in a really simple, low intelligence required example: wolves existed, humans bred wolves, they transformed into dogs by selective breeding, we "created" those dogs. Are dogs part of nature, or an unnatural manmade biological being?

>inb4 if its organic its inherently natural ;)

dude, yes, dogs are natural because if by some miraculous stroke of luck the right wolves with the right genes found each other on their own and mated, the same consequences would have occured. it is improbable but possible. but if you put every piece required to build a car in a lot and waited an eternity, nature would not build a car. the materials are of nature, the car is of man.

intelligence was the worst gift to man. how many times must someone post,
>a=b
>b=c
>c=!a

Why are men not part of nature?

we are, we just do very unnatural things because we think differently.

You are making false equivalences and digging yourself into a hole you can't escape because you'll need to analyze every event in the history of the Universe to catalogue it as natural or unnatural.

I literally can't make a false equivalence because to me everything is natural. My argument is flawless because I consider everything natural, but you defend a position that requires perfect logic and analysis of everything in the Universe and a complete classification of all things, one mistake and your logic gets thrown out of the window, and since you don't have this knowledge, claiming YOU have the right to say what's natural and what isn't not only irresponsible and wrong, but disgustingly narcissistic.

Get over your fucking self, you are part of nature too, you aren't a deity free from the rule of nature.

How long will it take for humans to accept we are part of nature?

everything men do is done according to nature's laws, even if it's an attempt to distance ourselves from nature

As a biology student I'm 100% certain you are wrong. Nature in the way you seem to grasp it would never create some of the breeds, because it'd be literally impossible without the help of humans.

Bulldogs are an example of this, they needed human technology and medicine to reproduce and exist. By your standards, some breeds are unnatural, specially considering some genes are stronger than others, so by rule of your conception of nature they would have never existed. It'd mean they are unnatural.

what are you even talking about, bro? is this what they call an ad hominem? suddenly you're attacking me instead of what i'm saying.

look, i never said we weren't natural. in fact our nature is to be against nature. so in that way, cars are natural, lol. my position requires no logic at all, only observation. do we NEED the vast majority of things we make for survival? are the vast majority of rules we make necessary? the only reason we're not eating scraps of food is pride. do you really think our stomachs can handle mcdonald's, burger king, pizza, soda, candy, chips, and not food from the dumps? lol get the fuck out of here, bro. seriously. stop projecting your pride onto me, it isn't mine.

>in fact our nature is to be against nature

Wow, when I said you thought of yourself as some deity outside of nature, I was simply exaggerating. But you literally believe this..

I'm sorry, but I refuse to argue with someone with such little knowledge of the subject at hand, and with such levels of distortion of reality. You are literally insane if you believe the things you are saying.

i like that you at least attacked my argument. i would have to agree then, that yes, some breeds are unnatural. as unnatural as a man born with a puffy face or three nipples.

it is true, though. what do you think progress is?

>our nature is to be against nature
>the only reason we're not eating scraps of food is pride
>do you really think our stomachs can handle mcdonald's, burger king, pizza, soda, candy, chips, and not food from the dumps? lol get the fuck out of here, bro.

Jesus... I don't even know where to start...

that was obviously an exaggeration. start wherever you like.

real != natural

I agree, even abstractions such as thoughts are natural. Everything that happens within the Universe is inherently natural. I'm not aware what happens outside of the Universe, so I simply can't make an argument for that.

you disagree and you are using circular reasoning

you are presupposing an end conclusion then building an argument from there

Sorry, you can't put words in my mouth. I do agree, and I'm correct.

But then again, it's only natural for you to be wrong, so don't worry.

You agree that real is not equivalent to natural?

I agree it doesn't have to be real to be natural. Like abstractions, they aren't tangible, but inherently natural, because someone or something must process such an abstraction one way or the other, therefore, even unreal things are natural.

look up civilizations of bees, termites, ants

look up biocommunism, your cells create a civilization that forms you

This. Civilization stopped evolution and natural selection dead in its track.

what humans produce is disharmonic civ

ants, bees, cells produce harmonic civ

Since it is nature for mankind to pursue as much power as possible (unless restricted by powerful codes and social norms) then yes, civilization is natural. The pursuit of large amounts of food, large amounts of people at your disposal, and the instinct of humans to shape their environment around them by leaving their mark on it via the creation of grand monuments, walls, palaces, etc.

Humans arose from nature. We're part of nature. Everything we make and do is part of nature too, just as coral reefs, ant hills, mountains, and cosmic rays are.

The word "nature" shouldn't really exist. It derives from the human conceit that we are separate, set aside, or above the world around us.

Actually it made it go faster you dumb prick

...

Hey look, it's the dumbest person in the thread.

>he doesn't know the difference between natural and human selection/selective breeding

Humans are perfectly natural.

Organisms are being altered by natural (via humans) selection to better suit human needs.

a meme and you don't have to go far to disprove it, muslims hate other sects more than they hate us

>there's a fundamental difference between humans being an evolutionary pressure and other animals being an evolutionary pressure

So by conclusion civilization is natural, because humans are part of nature, therefore everything we make is by definition part of nature, or reaponding to nature itself?

I would really like someone to try and make a list or a specific method of determining natural/unnatural.

humans civ is unnatural when compared to the rest of the planetary ceatures

>bees dining out at restaurants
>ants going clubbing
>wasps attending univeristy
>termits reading books at a library
>dolphins attending a piano concert

artificiallity is r3lativivistic