Humans- Nature Vs Culture

[Linn]

I think some instincts we have, are ignored by some people.
Perhaps because we are taught to override them?

This is a bit off subject, but
Do you wonder if we can use the waves in the air
to think with others? I think my dog does that with me.
He will just all of a sudden come up to me and just stare.
99% of the time I get his thought request correct. If I think
the answer he wags his tail.

Also when I think of going for a walk, even before I move
a muscle he jumps up and wags his tail.
What is going on with that? body language? chemical signals? ESP?

There is so much more of our brain to be used
if we could learn to use it. I cant remenmber the
percentage pf our brain we use, but its small.

The difference, though with my brain and my dogs
is that he could care less about the "whys" of things.
We are the only creature that tries to figure everything
out, and worry about tomorow, and care that some day
we are going to die.

[AstusAleator]

Linn:
1: Part of dogs "intelligence" is that even before their selective breeding by humans, they were very social creatures, attuned to non-verbal communication. Watch your dog sometime, when you're walking it or just bumming around near it. You'll notice that it will look at you often, or if it doesn't look at you, it's ears will turn your direction. This intelligence is something that has been amplified by breeding, so that many breeds of dogs today are extremely sensitive to nonverbal social cues. Likewise, humans are also capable of recognizing many non-verbal cues. I don't doubt that you and your dog have learned to recognize eachothers expressions and postures.
When he's staring at you, he's sending non-verbal cues your direction. When you finally realize what it is that he wants, or at least think you've realized, it is expressed in your face and body language, whether you know it or not.
When you get the idea to go for a walk, it's likely that your dog has been having the thought for a while already and is just waiting for you to have it. Dogs can sense changes in your posture, and breathing even if they're not looking at you. It's likely that something very miniscule happens when you have the thought to take a walk, and your dog can pick up on that.
I'm not saying "ESP" isn't possible, just attempting to explain with what I've observed and learned.

2: You mentioned "civilization" as a human trait, but really it can be seen even on the most basic of cellular levels. see Volvox for example.


February Beetle et al:
We still have yet to define "natural". We've brought up some relationships, but haven't really explored them entirely yet though. Why would one associate morals with nature? I think yall have created some false dichotomies, that if you explore further, may lead to some answers.

f you say that what we think is natural, that is to say that EVERYTHING is natural. Murder, Rape, Forming of Society, Destroying our Environment, Mass consumerism, wasting what we don’t need, etc… If everything is natural how can we punish people who commit ‘crimes.’

Here, for example, you're equating "natural" with "good" or moral right.
I think Mithrilhack was the one that brought up the point that morals arise as a necessity for delaying or preventing self-destruction. While that's a very general statement, and should not be taken as truth, it does give some pause for thought.

Is it perhaps a combination of our social instincts and development of "morals" that has precipitated our current dillema?

Anyhow, I think we should try to define "natural"

[mith]

http://skepdic.com/cleverhans.html

The original esp animal.

[February Beetle]

I don't think we could ever possibly define nature. That is like talking about religion. There is no right answer.

[alextemplet]

We actually do know the right answer; it's 42. We just don't know the right question yet.

[AstusAleator]

I don't see why we shouldn't be able to define nature, in one way or another. It is necessary to define a topic before exploring it, isn't it? If we were to give it the wrong definition, we'd realize that through our exploration.

[damien james]

You can define natural, but definition would stilll be subjective and open to interpretation I think. Unless you mean without human interference, but human is still part of nature, right?

As for original question:

So we're supposedly on the verge of an ecological/evolutionary/environmental disaster, in which humans will be the primary cause of world-wide destruction. (by verge i mean within the next 1000 yrs)

Why is this humans' fault?

If human are primary cause of world-wide destruction, where else can blame be laid?

How is the product of a man's labor any different than that of an animals (dams: humans vs beavers for example).

The product can be differentiated by several variables:

physical scale of effects

length of time effects last

deleterious toll on envionment

The effects human have on the environment is in highest range of each of variables.

It is theorized that the end of the carboniferous occured when herbivorous megafauna began to dominate, causing widespread destruction and culminating in an extinction event It is the nature of species to consume, thus increasing their own fitness. The principle of evolution hinges on this idea. How is human consumption any different?

Herbivorous megafauna were unable to forsee long term effects of actions, unlike human, which I think is at root of distinction between human harm to ecology, and other animal.

[February Beetle]

The way I see it, humans don't really see the long term effects, either. I don't think humans relize it to the extint we THINK we do, or else we wouldn't be where we are at.

I think it will be possible to find a lot of wrong definitions of nature, but not to find a true one.

[AstusAleator]

[

Maybe a better way of wording that would have been "why is this bad?" Obviously humans should be concerned in regard to the well-being of their species, but is there any other reason why we should consider this a bad thing?

I think the underlying question is:
Where do our perceptions of morality (right and wrong) and nature cross. Is it possible to divorce these philosophies from a definition of nature? Does "nature" exist without humans? Is it truly possible for us to consider natures importance purely for nature's sake?

[Linn]

well simply,
we cant blame any other creature for
pollution and bombs, and bio-engineered whatevers?
and world wars. Of course its humans fault.

[AstusAleator]

"fault" implies guilt or wrongdoing. What has been done that is wrong? Is it wrong because it's unnatural? Again I ask, is it possible to divorce our perceptions of right and wrong from what is natural?

[beluga fiction]

Some of us are angry because one day most of the species will be gone, personal I hope this process will be delayed.