"Tony, I love that clip! "Wolf Gets Blitzed"...tee-hee.
Did anyone read the comments below the You Tube version? they were almost all like, "Yeah, thank the lard for sending a ghastly tornado to kill more than 50…"
 |
The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
It's "Natural" therefore it's "good". It's "Artificial" therefore it's "bad".
I hear it all of the time. "I don't want to take that medicine because it's not natural". "This food is not natural". "I choose to live this way because it's natural". "This is good because it's natural". "This is bad because it's artificial".
Actually, we live in a world that is not "natural". It's difficult to define "natural" but many people seem to think that it's how were "intended" to be. The "artificial" character of medicine, vaccine, and food processing somehow indicates that these are harmful. The fact that we evolved in a world that wasn't human-made, somehow indicates that we are not "designed" for the modern world.
Think of dogs. Chihuahuas would not survive in the wild that their ancestors occupied. Neither would poodles. Neither would most domestic animals. Neither would we. "Natural" is not an option.
Actually, benefit and harm are both independent of "natural" vs. "artificial", and there is almost nothing left that is not modified already by human activity. The climate, CO2 content of the air, earth's temperature, the substances that waft about in the air and water, and permeate our bodies, have all been created or modified by human activity. Our brains and our relationships have been modified by human activity. All ecosystems have been significantly impacted by human activity, with intended and unintended consequences, beneficial and harmful depending on your perspective. So have our bodies. Our predecessors and ancestors had much smaller build. They were shorter and slimmer. Obesity either did not exist, or was rare, in ancient times. Lives were also shorter - much shorter. Life was also brutal. Ancient diseases are now almost forgotten in Western society - polio, leprosy, cholera, bubonic plague, tetanus, smallpox, typhoid fever, gangrene. Many aspects of life are immeasurably better, and it's not "natural."
Exercise is good for us, but not because ancient people had to work hard. Lack of dietary excess is good for us, but not because ancient people were thin. Sanitation is good for us, and ancient people who had sanitary systems likely benefited as well, but humans evolved in a presanitation world.
Humans by Era Average Lifespan at Birth (wikipedia)
(years) Comment
Upper Paleolithic 33 At age 15: 39 (to age 54)
Neolithic 20
Bronze Age 18
Bronze age, Sweden40-60
Classical Greece 20-30
Classical Rome 20-30
Pre-Columbian North America 25-30
Medieval Islamic Caliphate 35+ The average lifespans of the elite class were 59–84.3 years in the Middle East and 69–75 in Islamic Spain.
Medieval Britain 20-30
Early 20th Century 30-45
Current world average 66.57 2009 est.
There is no evidence that any "natural" activity of ancient times was beneficial to quality or quantity of life, because they simply did not live that long. Not their food, not their farming methods, not their medical technology, including Indian and Chinese herbal remedies.
So we are unnatural creatures in an unnatural world. That doesn't mean that pesticides are good (or bad) or fertilizers are good (or bad) or medicines are good (or bad) or SUVs are good (or bad) or processed food is good (or bad) or vegetarianism/omnivory is good (or bad). The utility, benefit / cost of these substances and activity is independent of their "naturalness", and depends on how they are used, in what circumstances, and to what degree, and their interrelation to the rest of their world, local and global. I think that many of the excesses of modern industrialized, commercial life are very harmful, but it's not because they are unnatural.
Sometimes, when people tell me "I don't want to take this cholesterol pill. It's not natural" I tell them "Neither is living past 30. If nature was all that we had to go by, you would be dead already, and so would your kids."
Actually, we live in a world that is not "natural". It's difficult to define "natural" but many people seem to think that it's how were "intended" to be. The "artificial" character of medicine, vaccine, and food processing somehow indicates that these are harmful. The fact that we evolved in a world that wasn't human-made, somehow indicates that we are not "designed" for the modern world.
Think of dogs. Chihuahuas would not survive in the wild that their ancestors occupied. Neither would poodles. Neither would most domestic animals. Neither would we. "Natural" is not an option.
Actually, benefit and harm are both independent of "natural" vs. "artificial", and there is almost nothing left that is not modified already by human activity. The climate, CO2 content of the air, earth's temperature, the substances that waft about in the air and water, and permeate our bodies, have all been created or modified by human activity. Our brains and our relationships have been modified by human activity. All ecosystems have been significantly impacted by human activity, with intended and unintended consequences, beneficial and harmful depending on your perspective. So have our bodies. Our predecessors and ancestors had much smaller build. They were shorter and slimmer. Obesity either did not exist, or was rare, in ancient times. Lives were also shorter - much shorter. Life was also brutal. Ancient diseases are now almost forgotten in Western society - polio, leprosy, cholera, bubonic plague, tetanus, smallpox, typhoid fever, gangrene. Many aspects of life are immeasurably better, and it's not "natural."
Exercise is good for us, but not because ancient people had to work hard. Lack of dietary excess is good for us, but not because ancient people were thin. Sanitation is good for us, and ancient people who had sanitary systems likely benefited as well, but humans evolved in a presanitation world.
Humans by Era Average Lifespan at Birth (wikipedia)
(years) Comment
Upper Paleolithic 33 At age 15: 39 (to age 54)
Neolithic 20
Bronze Age 18
Bronze age, Sweden40-60
Classical Greece 20-30
Classical Rome 20-30
Pre-Columbian North America 25-30
Medieval Islamic Caliphate 35+ The average lifespans of the elite class were 59–84.3 years in the Middle East and 69–75 in Islamic Spain.
Medieval Britain 20-30
Early 20th Century 30-45
Current world average 66.57 2009 est.
There is no evidence that any "natural" activity of ancient times was beneficial to quality or quantity of life, because they simply did not live that long. Not their food, not their farming methods, not their medical technology, including Indian and Chinese herbal remedies.
So we are unnatural creatures in an unnatural world. That doesn't mean that pesticides are good (or bad) or fertilizers are good (or bad) or medicines are good (or bad) or SUVs are good (or bad) or processed food is good (or bad) or vegetarianism/omnivory is good (or bad). The utility, benefit / cost of these substances and activity is independent of their "naturalness", and depends on how they are used, in what circumstances, and to what degree, and their interrelation to the rest of their world, local and global. I think that many of the excesses of modern industrialized, commercial life are very harmful, but it's not because they are unnatural.
Sometimes, when people tell me "I don't want to take this cholesterol pill. It's not natural" I tell them "Neither is living past 30. If nature was all that we had to go by, you would be dead already, and so would your kids."
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on -
I dunno, man. Have you ever read Greener Than You Think? Published in 1947, and quite entertaining, it's the story of an engineered crabgrass variant that takes over the world.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on -
Jason, you have the most encyclopedic mind that Ive ever seen!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on
-
Not really. I just filled my head with pulp fiction instead of stuff like The Odyssey. Of course, pulp fiction is usually just a gloss on the classics, so all the themes are there. Throw in a Harryhausen film or two and a couple of Gilligan's Island episodes based on Shakespeare, and I look like a frikkin' genius.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Jim DePaulo on -
Hear, hear! The Frankenfood crowd are the 21st century Luddites. The opposition to GM foods is a luxury only the well fed can indulge in.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on
-
I'm not 100% comfortable with all genetically engineered foods for a couple of reasons, although maybe someone can educate me.
1. I read that the vast majority of the basic grains and soybeans are now genetically engineered, from Monsanto. I do have a problem with the world's staple crops under control of one company.
2. If the genetic diversity of our staple crops decreases, that can leave us vulnerable to the next plant disease that comes along.
3. I recall reading that if the pollen from a genetically engineered food pollinates neighboring crops, then the farmer in the neighboring farm may be in violation of the patent. This seems unfair and in a way like forcing people to use the genetically engineered product.
4. I don't know secondary effects. Such as, if B; thuringensis toxin is engineered into plants, do they know if the pollen will be toxic to pollinating, beneficial insects?
I don't know if these are valid concerns or not. While I am OK with eating a genetically engineered food, some of the environmental and sociological impacts are not so clear to me. If the engineered crop results in killing off beneficial insects, then I am against it. It it results in significant loss of genetic diversity in staple crops, then I am against it as well. Of course, my being against it has no impact on whether it is grown, so it's a bit of a moot point. -
-
Permalink Reply by Jim DePaulo on
-
As I said in an up thread post, there are some issues with GM foods that need to be addressed. IMO, the main issue is the near monopoly that Monsanto has on seed stock and their ability to sue farmers for what is essentially Monsanto's fault - cross pollination. Another problem you mentioned is the possible reduction of the genetic diversity in our food crops and that needs some serious study as well as programs to prevent such an occurrence..
As for B. thuringensis, I'm not sure that's a problem as B. thuringensis has been used for decades by organic farmers to control leaf eating insect pest. I don't think it would harm pollinators as they don't eat the leaves and it has no effect on warm blooded animals.
All new technologies require extensive study for both short term and long term dangers to the environment and to human beings so you are right to view GM foods with caution - but not hysteria. -
-
Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on -
Haven't attempts at creating artificial versions of marijuana for medical purposes (such as marinol) created products that have less medicinal value, but a stronger hallucinogen? (And yet, which one is illegal?) That could be an example where we haven't learned to replicate the natural version--and I wouldn't fix it if it isn't broken.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on
-
Well, smoking a medicine is sort of broken. Presumably inhaling combustion products that have nothing to do with the medicinal components is less than desirable.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on
-
There are ways to inhale it that involve getting the same THC while getting very little smoke. Also, I don't know if the problems are worse than some side effects of legal drugs.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on
-
I'm just saying that smoke is not the ideal delivery mechanism. I realize that nausea patients have trouble with oral meds, and it may well be that the risks from the smoke are often outweighed by the benefits, but ideally, you'd rather have a pure drug of known dose. I think pot should be legalized regardless, but it still seems worthwhile researching cleaner, more precise delivery mechanisms. I could smoke willow bark, but aspirin tablets are preferable.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on
-
Right. It just can't be good for you. Any plant that you burn is going to have lots and lots of combustion products, most of which you don't want in your lungs. I've had people tell me that smoking pot is OK because weed is natural, unlike cigarettes, which are heavily processed by the evil tobacco companies. OK, but there's still a buncha stuff in the smoke that goes into your lungs, and alveoli just work better when they're not gunked up.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on
-
Oh, the other defense I've heard is that smokers might smoke 20 cigs a day, whereas tokers only smoke a couple joints a day, so the quantity is lower. Probably true, but that's like saying drinking a sixpack a day isn't as bad as drinking a case a day.
I experimented back in college (hey, that's what it's for), and I have to say, eating it was way better than smoking it--no crap in my lungs and the high was more giggly and less fuzzy. Even so, I never much cared for it. I'm with Woody Allen on this one: "My brain: it's my second favorite organ." -
CONNECT WITH ATHEIST NEXUS
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
The Flying Atheist commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends"Great clip, Tony. People need to realize that not everybody superfluously and automatically thanks god in a time of crisis. Maybe he's learned a lesson and become a smarter man. "
Natalie A Sera commented on Dallas the Phallus's group LINGUAPHILES & SESQUIPEDALIANS"And then, just to confuse things, there's polymath, which is from the Greek poly = much and manthanein = to learn. So, someone who knows a lot. Or at least enough to know that you can get a second crop from that field! Sorry, couldn't…"
Patricia commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends"Yaaaay Joan!!!
Yaaaay here too.....our exterior renos start Wednesday!!!!"
Tony Carroll commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends"
Wolf Blitzer. Open mouth, insert foot. LOL!!!"
Joan Denoo commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends"Carl, that sounds perfect! I like the idea Chimichurri Sauce works well as a marinade, and is also delicious on vegetables. Thanks"
Photos
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
