Natural vs Artificial

[makc]

In case you do not follow abstruse goose strips:

[geckzilla]

Heh, yeah, I've debated the two terms, myself. Humans think they are unnatural. It's kind of absurd. My conclusion is that we destroy wilderness but everything we do is still natural, even if it is more advanced, reasoned (sometimes, anyway), and geometric. But then again it is a bit of a semantic argument. We distinguish ourselves from other animals and most people do not even accept that they are an animal. So the need arises to use different words for contrast. Oh, humanity.

[Erebus]

I must concur. Since the 70's I have rankled at the use and marketing of the word "natural" - it is truly meaningless.
There is nothing in this universe that is unnatural. Nothing. Atomic power, cloning, even artificial life (when we get there, which I have no doubt we will).
We're just sentient animals following an evolutionary path like billions of other species have done before us on other worlds. Technology is what we do at this stage - some things are beneficial and some are stupid, but NONE are "unnatural".

[rstevenson]

Yes, but...

Human beings also possess the ability -- perhaps even the urge -- to define words to suit our needs. So we can certainly choose to define "natural" as "anything that is not affected by human intervention" while we define "artificial" as "anything that we have caused to occur."

Why not?

Rob

[neufer]

Human beings also possess the ability -- perhaps even the urge -- to define words to suit our needs. So we can certainly choose to define "natural" as "anything that is not affected by human intervention" while we define "artificial" as "anything that we have caused to occur."

It's only natural to make such artificial distinctions.

[makc]

Why not?

your definition basically states that "artificial" is a subset of "natural". however, people tend to use the word as if "artificial" was = "not natural".

[rstevenson]

It's only natural to make such artificial distinctions.

Exactly my point!

your definition basically states that "artificial" is a subset of "natural".

I don't see that.

however, people tend to use the word as if "artificial" was = "not natural".

As I said, yes -- and my on-line dictionary agrees: "made or produced by human beings rather than occuring naturally"

Rob

[makc]

I don't see that.

Please refer to large image in 1st post.

[BMAONE23]

Why would a Human Colony be any more artificial or any less natural than an Ant Colony. The Structures that Ants "Build" in the ground arent really any different than those that Humans "Build" on top of the ground. The Ants create a "cement" and plaster the sides and roof of their dewllings much like the Humans create a "Cement" and plaster the sides and ceilings of their dewllings. The only real difference is, We build UP and they build DOWN. (though termites build towers)

[geckzilla]

I still think it's because most humans do not consider themselves to be animals. Ergo, to them, we are not like ants beyond the concept of metaphors. Indeed, there are many people who do not even realize that ants themselves are animals. They can relate to many other mammals because of some shared traits but relating to something like an ant is not something they will not readily do upon observing an ant colony.

We do need some kind of distinction between man-made and not-man-made, though. You can't rightly call both vanilla extract that came from the actual vanilla bean and vanilla flavoring that was concocted in the lab natural. Synthetic is a very good word.

[BMAONE23]

OK ... Liger
Natural or artificial
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&a ... CBYQsAQwAA

[geckzilla]

Natural... with human assistance! Actually, it's entirely possible for them to do it in the wild but the two species don't mingle much. Would you think to call a mule artificial? It's another hybrid. And you can bet that mules existed before humans came around to watch it happen or encourage it.

[neufer]

<<The naked mole rat is one of the two species of mammals that exhibit eusociality. They have a complex social structure in which only one female (the queen) and one to three males reproduce, while the rest of the members of the colony function as workers. As in certain bee species, the workers are divided along a continuum of different worker-caste behaviors instead of discrete groups. Some function primarily as tunnellers, expanding the large network of tunnels within the burrow system, and some primarily as soldiers, protecting the group from outside predators. Colonies range in size from 20 to 300 individuals, averaging 75 individuals. This eusocial organisation social structure, similar to that found in ants, termites, and some bees and wasps, is very rare among mammals. The Damaraland Mole Rat (Cryptomys damarensis) is the only other eusocial mammal currently known.



The relationships between the queen and the breeding males may last for many years. A behaviour called reproductive suppression is believed to be the reason why the other females do not reproduce, meaning that the infertility in the working females is only temporary, and not genetic. Queens live from 13 to 18 years, and are extremely hostile to other females behaving like queens, or producing hormones for becoming queens. When the queen dies, another female takes her place, sometimes after a violent struggle with her competitors.

In the wild, naked mole-rats usually breed once a year, if the litter survives. In captivity, they breed all year long and can produce a litter every 80 days. The young are born blind and weigh about 2 grams. The queen nurses them for the first month; after which the other members of the colony feed them feces until they are old enough to eat solid food.

The holds the record for the longest living rodent (up to 28 years). The reason for their longevity is thought to be related to the fact that they can substantially reduce their metabolism during hard times. This has been summed up as "They're living their life in pulses."

Cancer has never been observed in naked mole rats. The mechanism that stunts cancer is a gene called p16, known as an "over-crowding" gene, which prevents the creation of new cells once a group of cells reaches a certain size. Most mammals, including naked mole rats, have a gene called p27 which does a similar task, but prevents cellular reproduction at a much later point than p16 does.>>

[Chris Peterson]

your definition basically states that "artificial" is a subset of "natural". however, people tend to use the word as if "artificial" was = "not natural".

And your argument seems to suggest that there is only one meaning of "natural".

Depending on context, "natural" and "artificial" can be antonyms, or "artificial" can be a subset of "natural". Both of these combinations have been used (correctly) in this discussion. There is no conflict. Usually, when people say "artificial" they really do mean "not natural", in the sense that the object of discussion did not arise without human intervention.

It is pretty reasonable to recognize that humans are very different from any other animals in the degree to which we modify our environment through conscious, deliberate, reasoned action. You pretty much know what a beaver is going to do when it comes to a creek; you pretty much know what an ant is going to do when it comes to a sand pit; but you seldom know what a person is going to do in a given situation. You can argue that our actions are "natural" because they stem from a natural animal, but that overlooks the fact that we are unique in the animal kingdom. (BTW, in rare cases where animals show strong reasoned behavior, the term natural seems not to be used, or not used in its usual sense. And even where little reasoning is involved, "natural" may be avoided: termite mounds are frequently called "artificial" to distinguish them from similar geologic ("natural") formations; again, context is everything.)

[makc]

ok so if you are suggesting to limit "natural" to things not made by humans, or := "not artificial" in (some appropriate) context, that's fine, but then what word would you use for "natural" U "artificial"?

[Chris Peterson]

ok so if you are suggesting to limit "natural" to things not made by humans, or := "not artificial" in (some appropriate) context, that's fine, but then what word would you use for "natural" U "artificial"?

Does it need a unique word? We have a rich vocabulary; I see no reason not to take advantage of it in any situation where an expressed concept isn't trivial.

[neufer]

Natural... with human assistance! Actually, it's entirely possible for them to do it in the wild but the two species don't mingle much. Would you think to call a mule artificial? It's another hybrid. And you can bet that mules existed before humans came around to watch it happen or encourage it.

Assuming, that is, that a Mongolian Wild Horse ever met an African Wild Ass.

<<The donkey is a domesticated member of the horse family. The wild ancestor of the donkey is the African Wild Ass, E. africanus.>>

<<Humans began to domesticate horses around 4000 BCE, and their domestication is believed to have been widespread by 3000 BCE. Although most horses today are domesticated, there are still endangered populations of the Przewalski's Horse, the only remaining true wild horse.>>

---------------------------------------
At least Lions & Tigers both have 38 chromosomes.

A donkey has 62 chromosomes, whereas a horse has 64:

<<A hinny is a domestic equine hybrid that is the offspring of a male horse and a female donkey (called a jenny or jennet). It is similar to the more common mule, which is the product of a female horse and a male donkey. Hinnies are difficult to obtain because of the differences in the number of chromosomes of the horse and the donkey. A donkey has 62 chromosomes, whereas a horse has 64. Hinnies, being hybrids of those two species, have 63 chromosomes and are sterile. The uneven number of chromosomes results in an incomplete reproductive system. According to the ADMS, "The equine hybrid is easier to obtain when the lower chromosome count, the donkey, is in the male. Therefore breeding for hinnies is more hit-and-miss than breeding for mules." There are other reasons for the rarity of hinnies. Female donkeys, jennies, and male horses, stallions, are choosier about their mates than horse mares and donkey jacks. Thus, the two parties involved may not care to mate.>>

---------------------------------------
So...what's the difference between a vitamin and a hormone?

[geckzilla]

Assuming, that is, that a Mongolian Wild Horse ever met an African Wild Ass.

The Mongolian wild horse may be the only current existing wild horse but there were others in existence before humans came along and domesticated (or killed and ate) them. It's not like I was there to watch them evolve but there must have been some instances of interbreeding between wild asses and horses at some point. Donkeys can also breed with zebras. Ever happen in the wild? Who knows. Nature tries everything as many times as it has the chance.

[Chris Peterson]

The Mongolian wild horse may be the only current existing wild horse but there were others in existence before humans came along and domesticated (or killed and ate) them.

Now there seems to be an unexplained hybridization of "natural" and "wild". In fact, by most any reasonable definition, there are many different breeds of wild horses in existence around the world. The Wikipedia article is poorly written. I expect they are trying to say that the Przewalski's horse is the only remaining wild horse breed that doesn't show evidence of cross-breeding with domesticated horses, or with horses that are in some way the product of artificial selection processes by humans.

[geckzilla]

Hmm, I thought I might have heard about them being the only existing wild horses from other sources including one of BBC's productions but I may be thinking of the wild camels. But I haven't heard of any other wild horses. Which do you speak of? I know there are many feral horse populations which by many definitions may be considered wild but there is a distinction between wild and feral.

[Chris Peterson]

Hmm, I thought I might have heard about them being the only existing wild horses from other sources including one of BBC's productions but I may be thinking of the wild camels. But I haven't heard of any other wild horses. Which do you speak of? I know there are many feral horse populations which by many definitions may be considered wild but there is a distinction between wild and feral.

I guess it may depend on your choice of definitions. My dictionary gives the first definition of "feral" as "wild". I absolutely consider the Mustangs living wild in western states to be "wild" in every sense of the word. As I noted earlier, they are descended from horses that had been domesticated and artificially bred, but they are hundreds of years from that history. I, and every other horse person I know, considers them to be wild horses.

Personally, I think "feral" is best reserved for animals that have escaped domestication, not ones whose ancestors did so.

[geckzilla]

I see. Can't argue with you, there. Since their origins are from the domestic horse, there is definitely a difference between them and the Mongolian one. But I agree that it's also a bit of a disservice to label them as feral. I think a big reason they like to say "this is the LAST species" because it sounds a lot better on the threat report, even though it really shouldn't matter if it's the last or not it tends to evoke a greater emotional response.

[neufer]

Assuming, that is, that a Mongolian Wild Horse ever met an African Wild Ass.

The Mongolian wild horse may be the only current existing wild horse but there were others in existence before humans came along and domesticated (or killed and ate) them. It's not like I was there to watch them evolve but there must have been some instances of interbreeding between wild asses and horses at some point. Donkeys can also breed with zebras. Ever happen in the wild? Who knows. Nature tries everything as many times as it has the chance.

Perhaps it even led to the Quagga:

<<The quagga is an extinct subspecies of the Plains zebra, which was once found in great numbers in South Africa's Cape Province and the southern part of the Orange Free State. It was distinguished from other zebras by having the usual vivid marks on the front part of the body only. In the mid-section, the stripes faded and the dark, inter-stripe spaces became wider, and the rear parts were a plain brown. The name comes from a Khoikhoi word for zebra and is onomatopoeic, being said to resemble the quagga's call.>>

Code: Select all

* Zebra (stallion) + horse (mare): zorse, zebra mule, zebrule or golden zebra
* Zebra (stallion) + any ass species (jenny): zebrass

* Zebra (stallion) + donkey (jenny): zedonk, zeedonk, zonkey, zebronkey, zebadonk
* Zebra (mare) + donkey (jack): zebret, zebrinny

<<A zonkey (also known as zebrass, zebronkey, zeass, zeedonk, zedonk, zebadonk, zenkey, donbra, donbri, donkra, zebrinny, zebrula, debra) is a cross between a zebra and a donkey. "Zonkey" is not the technically correct name for such a cross. The most commonly accepted terms are zebrinny, zebrula, and zedonk. Donkeys are closely related to zebras and both animals belong to the horse family. Zonkeys are very rare.

In South Africa they occur where zebras and donkeys are found in proximity to each other. Like mules, however, they are genetically unable to breed, due to an odd number of chromosomes disrupting meiosis. However, in The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin reported a case of a zonkey that apparently bred with a bay mare to produce a "triple hybrid".

In the 1970s, the Colchester Zoo, England bred zedonks, at first by accident and later to create a disease-resistant riding and draft animal.


Donkeys and wild equids have different numbers of chromosomes. A donkey has 62 chromosomes; the zebra has between 32 and 46 (depending on species). In spite of this difference, viable hybrids are possible provided the gene combination in the hybrid allows for embryonic development to birth. A hybrid has a number of chromosomes somewhere in between. The chromosome difference makes female hybrids poorly fertile and male hybrids sterile due to a phenomenon called Haldane's Rule. The difference in chromosome number is most likely due to horses having 2 longer chromosomes that contain similar gene content to 4 zebra chromosomes.

As courtship in horses involves the mare kicking at the stallion's head for some time before allowing him to mount, and as this behavior is stronger in wild equids than in domestic horses, it is difficult enough to get a horse stallion to mate and not be put off by the rough behavior of the non-horse mare.>>

[geckzilla]

Horses.
http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/anc ... -sequence/

[neufer]

Gould, S.J., "What Does
the Dreaded `E' Word Mean Anyway?,"

in "I Have Landed:
Splashes and Reflections in Natural History,"
Vintage: London, Reprinted, 2003, p.242)
...............................................................
<<[We should note] that Darwin himself never used the word `evolution' in his epochal book of 1859, the Origin of Species, where he calls this fundamental biological process `descent with modification.' The few pre-Darwinian English citations of genealogical change as "evolution" all employ the word as a synonym for predictable progress. For example, in describing Lamarck's theory for British readers (in the second volume of his Principles of Geology, 1832), Charles Lyell generally uses the neutral term "transmutation"--except in one passage, where he wishes to highlight a claim for progress: "The testacea of the ocean existed first, until some of them by gradual evolution were improved into those inhabiting the land."

"Evolution" -- from the Latin "evolVERE" -- literally means "an unrolling," and clearly implies an unfolding in time of a predictable or prepackaged sequence in an inherently progressive, or at least directional, manner (the "fiddlehead" of a fern unrolls and expands to bring forth the adult plant -- a true evolution of preformed parts).

The Oxford English Dictionary traces the word "evolution" to 17th-century English poetry. Here the word's key meaning -- the sequential exposure of prepackaged potential-- inspired the first recorded usages in our language. For example, Henry More (1614-87), the British philosopher responsible for several of the seventeenth-century citations in the OED entry, stated in 1664,"I have not yet evolved all the intangling superstitions that may be wrapt up."

Although the word "evolution" does not appear in the first edition of Origin of Species, Darwin does use the verbal form "evolved" clearly in the vernacular sense and in an especially crucial spot: the very last word of the book! Most students have failed to appreciate the incisive and intended "gotcha" of these closing lines, which have generally been read as a poetic reverie, a harmless linguistic flourish essentially devoid of content, however rich in imagery.

"Whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." >>