[bizorky]

Are you saying there is naturally occurring Deca-BDE or PVC in plants and animals?

Nope. Didn't say that all.

Who cares what chemicals exist at the center of the planet... obviously if there is an unnaturally high temperature any chemical is possible but a chemical made in a factory at over 80'C has little chance of existing on the surface of the planet barring volcanic eruption. Maybe because hot lava comes out of the ground naturally we should take nickel mine tailings from Sudbury and simply sprinkle them over the rain forests to simulate a volcanic eruption? If I draw a moustache on Mona Lisa does is it toxic or damaging? Where is the scientic evidence of harm... some people like a good moustache don't they? If I dump relatively inert garbage on your front lawn which is non-toxic is it really a problem? Where is the scientific evidence that the Coke can on your lawn and my dogs feces isn't actually good for your lawn... perhaps I was helping you out.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean here.

Maybe you are expecting science to justify all change we exert on the environment but I don't believe that this planet is ours to consume and spit out. Just because an asteroid might hit the planet in a few weeks and destroy the planet it hardly justifies us blowing it up now. So a chemical might exist in volcanic lava... well volcanic lava hasn't shown up on the St.Clair river lately so should there be new sources of those chemicals on the St.Clair river?

Expecting science to justify change? Again, I'm not too sure what you are getting at here. You are speaking as if science is a monolith, some kind of purpose-oriented bulldozer. At its most basic, science is knowledge. The notion of "consuming and spitting out" could also be described as "ingesting and excreting." No doubt too much excrement can make the local environment a little foul. Too little can also have negative effects. So it's worth understanding something about the range of "too much" and "too little."

With respect to large systems like climate, animal population and the like, balance is a nice word, but too tame. Dynamic equilibrium is a little more accurate. Take a look at global history and you will quickly see that things don't remain in some idealized, perfect balance. There are fluctuations that on the small, local level appear catastophic. these are the "natural" processes of the planet. The trouble is you seem to be mixing many different topics up here.

You aren't going to be convinced that there is a natural balance in the environment and that we shouldn't be the ones unbalancing it. The oceans are large so rather than trying to deal with "so called" toxic substances (everything is toxic so WTF are they talking about right??) simply dump them at sea... the chemicals probably already exist somewhere and once the sea dilutes it probably will be no biggie. Dinosaurs went extinct so maybe those whales are meant to go next... might as well get their blubber while we can. The atmosphere is huge and will dilute whatever crap we expel into it eventually... and who is to say a volcanic eruption wouldn't have done it anyways. Avian flu is probably going to kill more people than gangsters in Toronto so why worry about it... violence is normal in the animal kingdom. In history we would have had a big war by now... many we are overdue and should get at it.

Convinced? Why, because you say it? You invoke a nice word like "balance" and demand that everyone live by it? But what do you mean by "balance?" Should we get back to the "balanced" life as it existed in 1900? Or maybe 1200? Or maybe 15,000 BCE? Should live the "balanced" life of Medieval peasants or Neanderthals? Again,which one? The species we belong to has gone from a few million to over six billion in 10,000 years. What do you call the "balance?"
You live in a human-built city, by some measures a totally "unnatural" environment, constructed out of a huge menu of materials that have been fabricated, chemically altered, treated and so on. You share that city with millions of people and rely on artificail agricultural techniques to sustain yourself. You light your home by way of a artificially imposed electrical grid, the electricity derived from heat capture of atomic fission in a highly structured process. You use artificial techniques of mobility to get around that city of millions of people, devices also fabricated and processed. You wear clothing made, in many cases, of "unnatural" fibres, and with chemically created dyes. You've eaten foods that have been processed, treated and packaged, in many cases for your very safety. You've been innoculated against diseases which could only have been done through "unnatural" laboratory processes, and could very well find yourself protected from a pandemic because of these unnatural processes.

So amid this, what do you mean by "balance?"


I could go on, but won't.

 

[EnviroTO]

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean here.

I'm not surprised.

So amid this, what do you mean by "balance?"

Black box human activity in certain areas, leave certain areas to nature, aim for zero impact outside human activity areas so that those wilderness areas or areas in the open ocean remain as if humans never existed on the planet. Draw lines on a map where humans can live and mark other areas out of bounds to everything except basic transportation. Nothing should leave the human activity areas in greater quantities than what entered those areas. That is what I mean by balance.

 

[ganjavih]

ganja - I respect your opinion as I think you mentioned that you are a doctor.

No, I'm not... not yet anyway.

Nonetheless there is no possible way you can convince me that 10 % of American children, which is supposedly the % of those with ADD, are in need of Ritalin.

When did I try to convince you of that? I just responded to your suggestion that ADD was "made up BS".

Let's look at the fact that there is no physical exam that can prove the existence of ADD and also that current ADD tests are totally subjective.

How could a physical exam possibly be used for a mental condition? There's no physical exam for schizophrenia either.

Would you honestly put your kid on Ritalin if a "qualified" doctor told you it was necessary?

Yup. Why wouldn't I?

A drug that doesn't increase your IQ but makes you dull and also only improves your performance in repetitive bored tasks.

Huh? You don't like it because it doesn't increase your IQ? Does it matter to you that it has helped many ADD kids perform better in school, regardless of whether it's overprescribed or not?

 

[bizorky]

Ah well, when you can't properly attack the argument, you can always try to attack the one making the argument.

 

[EnviroTO]

Well you seem to believe we should let loose anything into the environment first and wait for science to prove it is somehow having no impact later. I would prefer an approach quite different which would measure the naturally occurring levels of chemicals (which in this context means the levels they would be if man did not exist) in areas around the world and say that human activity should not change those levels. Research could try to perfect what those levels are but the current readings could be taken as a guideline. Research could be done over time to try to determine how the planet would evolve naturally (without mans presence) and set new levels accordingly.

 

[EnviroTO]

Quote:Are you saying there is naturally occurring Deca-BDE or PVC in plants and animals?

Nope. Didn't say that all.

So answer yes or no then. Does Deca-BDE or PVC occur in plants and animals naturally (in this case meaning if man had not created it)?

 

[EnviroTO]

Ah well, when you can't properly attack the argument, you can always try to attack the one making the argument.

You aren't making any argument other than arguing synonyms and posing endless questions. You haven't once suggested how we should prevent man from further changing the properties of the planet outside our domain such that a woodpecker in a nature reserve lives in the same exact chemical makeup as it would have if man never existed.

 

[bizorky]

Well you seem to believe we should let loose anything into the environment first and wait for science to prove it is somehow having no impact later.

Where did I state such a belief?

Research could be done over time to try to determine how the planet would evolve naturally (without mans presence) and set new levels accordingly.

Okay, I'm sorry, but do you have any idea how complex, how utterly difficult this would be? Without "man's presence?" How would you presume to do this? What would be the purpose? The fact is we are here.

answer yes or no then. Does Deca-BDE or PVC occur in plants and animals naturally

I have not looked; have you? There are numerous polymers to be found in nature, some may resemble Deca-BDE, some may react or bind like it. I have never suggested that they are not dangerous. As I have stated repeatedly to you, all substances are toxic in large enough quantities. If you read this statement you would understand that I would never suggest that a specific chemical compound is not toxic. So why do you persist in trying to slant what I say?

Let me ask you just one question about your bad-boy compound of choice, how much of it is toxic? What quantity, by what measure? Is it by inhalation, ingestion; by what means of entering the body? How does it react; with what organs? Is it volatile and understood to release toxic emissions when heated or burned? Is there a way to clear it? Is it toxic if left inert? Does it react readily with other typically available compounds to become potentially toxic, or release toxic components? If so, which ones? Is it a problem of production, specific types of usage, or disposal? How can it be disposed of properly if it does pose an unnecessary risk? If the product is to be used, are there established ways to mitigate negative or excessive exposures that could build up to generate a toxic response? How do you adequately infrom the user? If you don't know, that would suggest that research must be done; yet another of my points that I have had to repeat.

You aren't making any argument other than arguing synonyms and posing endless questions. You haven't once suggested how we should prevent man from further changing the properties of the planet outside our domain such that a woodpecker in a nature reserve lives in the same exact chemical makeup as it would have if man never existed.

Again, what's wrong with questions? They beat the hell out of platitudes in my opinion. You talk about science, but science begins with a set of questions that get refined to ones that suggest a clear course for research. If you don't like questions, too bad. From the standpoint of politics and policy-making, policies founded on vague concepts could have significant and potentially negative impacts on more than just human beings and human systems. In my opinion, policy-makers better be damn clear about what they mean, so my argument concerns the virtual uselessness of vague terms, because lofty notions and empty platitudes don't cut it when lives are going to be affected. They can, and have, caused considerable mayhem.

You seem to particularly dislike when I ask questions about, or state problems with "natural" versus "unnatural;" or your notion of "balance;" or raise issues about the vagueness what "sustainability" is supposed to mean. As I have pointed out, they don't really lend themselves to being particularly useful. I think that pointing out a problematic approach to understanding things or generating solutions is a contribution, but it is not a conclusion. Clarification of concepts and analysis are not acts of destruction, except to unsound concepts.

I have already repeated the problem with a restricted and incorrect use of the term "toxic," and the naturalistic fallacy that nature is utterly benevolent and people are all nasty. It is a complete illusion to pretend to lift people away from this planet. Sorry to repeat it, but we are part of what we call nature, we are a product of nature, and until someone proves otherwise, what we do is an outcome of that fact.

As for "man" changing the environment, and the potential for negative effects, we affect and are affected. Seriously, I would not be having this exchange with you if I didn't think that there were effects generated by people. I prefer a pursuit of clarity on serious issues. Research untainted by political attitude or wishful thinking has to be done.

Life has always been altering the ecosystem in some way. With respect to human beings it is not an issue of when, it's already happened. I think you would at least agree on that. But this alteration is happening because we are part of the environment, part of the ecosystem, part of the earth. And yes, we can do damage; we already know that. We need to understand the details more clearly, and we are late on starting. If we screw up really badly, we will join the other 99% of all species that have already gone extinct over the course of life on earth. Others will fill the niche we leave behind.


But consider this environmental calamity from the past:

The first photosynthetic bacteria to evolve on earth did not require oxygen to live, but produced oxygen as a product as a bi-product of their photosynthetic process. Over millions of years, that oxygen built up in the atmosphere, in the forming oceans and on and in the land surface of the planet. Eventually the buildup of this released oxygen became so overwhelming and so poisonous it wiped out massive populations of anaerobic bacteria - to the degree that such bacteria are difficult to find in large numbers today where they once used to exist freely. The event is refered to as the "Oxygen Holocaust," a truly massive and wide-ranging poisoning of the ecosystem with absolutely no parallel to the polluting we do today. Nature did this; life did this. And its on a scale that is hard to imagine.

But because of this event, we have the oxygen we need to breath. That poisoning of the planet by life affected not only the atmosphere, but caused an impressive range of extremely complex geological, chemical and biological changes, the very types of changes that were absolutely necessary to the evolution of almost all of the life you see around you today. Even your bike rusts because of it.

So let me just ask you to reflect on this event, just think about it and consider this type of dynamic environment without judgement. Evolution and life has already included and been driven by toxic poisoning, unsustainable activity, imbalance and an outcome that could easily be described as unnatural for the life forms in existence at that time. All of that, all of it, was necessary for us to be having this exchange today.

We have to think clearly and it will always be tough. It doesn't look like we have a choice in that matter if we want knowledge instead of platitudes.

 

[EnviroTO]

Okay, I'm sorry, but do you have any idea how complex, how utterly difficult this would be?

Yes. I'm not suggesting it happens overnight but current levels would be taken as a baseline to start.

Without "man's presence?" How would you presume to do this? What would be the purpose? The fact is we are here.

We would come to understand what our impacts on the natural environment is through research into the subject. The fact is that with the knowledge we have developed in the past 300 years we have evolved past evolution in that we can control our evolution unlike any other organism. With no checks or balances man will inhabit every corner of the globe and everything that exists will exist because we decided we wanted to keep it or make it. With our knowledge should come responsibility, in my view, for protecting organisms in their non-man influenced habitats. With every chemical we release from areas of human activity into area of no human activity we are changing those areas such that wilderness becomes more of a disneyland than a look at untouched nature.

Let me ask you just one question about your bad-boy compound of choice, how much of it is toxic? What quantity, by what measure? Is it by inhalation, ingestion; by what means of entering the body? How does it react; with what organs? Is it volatile and understood to release toxic emissions when heated or burned? Is there a way to clear it? Is it toxic if left inert? Does it react readily with other typically available compounds to become potentially toxic, or release toxic components? If so, which ones? Is it a problem of production, specific types of usage, or disposal? How can it be disposed of properly if it does pose an unnecessary risk? If the product is to be used, are there established ways to mitigate negative or excessive exposures that could build up to generate a toxic response? How do you adequately infrom the user? If you don't know, that would suggest that research must be done; yet another of my points that I have had to repeat.

My point is that all the answers to those questions you pose should be known BEFORE creating such a chemical and allowing out past the boundaries of human activity not AFTER. Until ALL those questions are answered for EVERY organism on the planet we should release ZERO of them into the environment past areas of human activity. Even so, if those chemicals are manufactured we should ensure that they do not change the natural (non man influenced) levels of those chemicals in the environment beyond human activity areas. The reason for this is that we are possibly damaging the planet in areas of no human activity with our lack of knowledge of natural (non man influenced) processes in the environment.

You seem to particularly dislike when I ask questions about, or state problems with "natural" versus "unnatural;" or your notion of "balance;" or raise issues about the vagueness what "sustainability" is supposed to mean.

OK. Well I have told you what those words mean in the context I am using them. When I say "natural" I mean the situation that would exist in the environment if man's brain didn't evolve past the mental capacity of a deer thus having much less of an impact on the environment.

I accept these meanings from the dictionary:
na·ture n. - A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality.
nat·u·ral adj. - Present in or produced by nature.

When I say sustainable I mean that if we black box human activity and its impacts into areas of human activity, a sustainable way of life is one by which we can continue our existence indefinitely (1) without expanding the areas of human activity, and (2) without changing the balance between inputs and outputs from that black boxed area of human activity such that nothing exits the black box that didn't enter it via natural means.

sus·tain To keep in existence; maintain.

So there you have it the definition of natural and sustainable as I use them.

I have already repeated the problem with a restricted and incorrect use of the term "toxic," and the naturalistic fallacy that nature is utterly benevolent and people are all nasty.

I used the term "toxic chemicals" as an example of something humans are releasing into the environment and by toxic I mean carcinogenic or leathal to an organism in relatively small doses. However toxic is not the be all and end all for ensuring that natural areas exist on the planet. Releasing something into the environment which is toxic in small doses to any organism is simply an example of doing something worse than making the environment beyond our areas of activity unnatural. I do not believe that nature is benevolent but it lack sentience and thus what it does is neither good nor bad. If naturally the earth is to be destroyed than so be it. If by our own means the earth is destroyed then shame on us.

But consider this environmental calamity from the past:

That is an example of something happening on the planet free of the influence of man's sentience and such change in the environment is not against the ideas of keeping things natural or keeping our own activities sustainable.

 

[Mislav]

I'm not sure what do you mean by a drug license?

The right to sell "drugs" and call themselves a "drug" company.

ganja:

When did I try to convince you of that? I just responded to your suggestion that ADD was "made up BS".

LOL, it was a figure of speech. Nonetheless the fact that "experts" claim that the figure is so big makes this entire thing questionnable.

Yup. Why wouldn't I?

Huh? You don't like it because it doesn't increase your IQ? Does it matter to you that it has helped many ADD kids perform better in school, regardless of whether it's overprescribed or not?

First off, I never said I didn't like it because it doesn't increase IQ. I simply said there is misinformation here as it only improves performance in repetitive and boring tasks.

Secondly, you and I obviously have very different opinions so I won't try to change yours and I'm assuming you won't try to change mine. But ask yourself, is drugging kids really the answer to making them more "manageable"? Studies have shown that kids taking Ritalin are more likely to experiment with other illegal drugs later on which makes sense - you teach them that drugs are the answer to your problems, they figure they might as well try others.

Furthermore although Ritalin does increase performance on the elementary and high school level, it is known to impede creative thinking, something is very seldom required before university. Heck you can't deny the fact that our elementary schools are overly repetitive, are the kids really to blame for that? You also tend to place a great emphasis on performance - I mean if we're giving kids "diagnosed" with ADD Ritalin, why not give fat kids or kids that are bad in sports steroids? The better they perform the happier they'll be - it's the American way.

I don't know if you're aware but Ritalin is virtually unused in Europe - it seems to be us and the States that are so concerned about drugging our youth. I've had a cousin that was diagonsed with ADD by a North American doctor by performing a very simple test. Fortunately his parents weren't that naive to place him on Ritalin right away. When they went to Europe, the doctors there ran more detailed tests and found out that he was bored in class due to the fact that they are repetiting the same stuff over and over again. I've noticed he was hyper myself and couldn't concentrate while even watching a movie. Instead of putting him on drugs, his parents made him do chores and play soccer - you should see how his concentration improved. So would you say he was just a regular 10 year old boy or somebody suffering from ADD? No offense to you personally but it seems to me that the North American doctor just wanted to get rid of the patient and a pat on the back from the pharmaceutical companies for prescribing their drugs. LOL, don't even get me started on North American doctors.

All in all, if you want to place your children on Ritalin, that's fine but ask yourself this: are you being a good parent simply by improving his performance in highly repetitive tasks?

 

[ganjavih]

So what are you arguing exactly? That ADD doesn't exist or that there are ways to treat it other than ritalin?

 

[bizorky]

Yes. I'm not suggesting it happens overnight but current levels would be taken as a baseline to start.

If the input variables are even moderately inaccurate, you will never get any meaningful data. The variables are actually incredibly complex.

The fact is that with the knowledge we have developed in the past 300 years we have evolved past evolution in that we can control our evolution unlike any other organism. With no checks or balances man will inhabit every corner of the globe and everything that exists will exist because we decided we wanted to keep it or make it.

No, we have not "evolved past evolution." That is a human conceit, just like the idea that we are somehow seperate, or above, or better than what we refer to as "nature." We are not, we are part of it. Our evolution is a product of natural selection, our brains are are the product of natural selection and as a result, our thinking and our capacities are a product of the same evolutionary process. The stuff we do is part of nature. We are part of the world, part of the ecosystem; we could not exist without it. Can you find anything that says we are "beyond" it? We actually just imagine this state; it is this wishful thinking that allows people to feel they have some god-given right to dominate the environment. The often-cited notion of "stewardship" is the same thing, an attempt to seperate our species from the environment, to lift it onto some imagined pedestal. It is an illusion, too, but at least not as extreme as the notion of domination.

As for checks and balances, they exist, and I am surprised you can't see them. One, for example, is ourselves, and our capacity for poor choices. Hence, once again, my suggestion that we pursue knowledge in understanding cause and effects. The other check and balance is the rest of the ecosystem, that extremely complex environment capable of unusual and unpredictable change due to the fact that it is not a nice balancing act, but something much more dynamic and capable of surprises. As I have pointed out, 99% of other species are extinct. If everything so ordered and balanced, why did they die off?

My point is that all the answers to those questions you pose should be known BEFORE creating such a chemical and allowing out past the boundaries of human activity not AFTER. Until ALL those questions are answered for EVERY organism on the planet we should release ZERO of them into the environment past areas of human activity.

You have not actually asked that so pointedly until now. But you use such an argument because because it can't be challenged and is unreasonable. That's your prerogative to suggest it, though. Test all substances on all organisms on the planet? So there could be between five and a hundred million species of all types of life on earth (we simply don't know). And how many compounds? Tens of thousands? Presently, we know that would take forever. But I guess that's the conclusion you are looking for.

The funny part is that you know what you know about this compound because it has actually been tested! There is still more to learn, no doubt. But there are research and testing protocols, knowledge of chemistry and chemical interactions, a vast array of complex tools to help people inform themselves about the effects of things. And there is little doubt that Deca-BDE or PVC went to market without testing. Considering how much PVC is out there, people are not dropping dead like flies, and that should tell us something. Nowhere have I suggested that more knowledge is bad, so there is nothing wrong with more research.

Nevertheless, according to your demands, research is not prescient enough, fast enough or far-ranging enough to satisfy your enormous requirements for totality in testing and cmprehension. Are you suggesting that in the meantime we should simply bring everything to a complete halt? No more research, no more distribution of any compound not fully tested on all organisms on the planet? How is that to be done? Any idea on all the effects of attempting to carry such a proposition out? And who shall enforce it? Since we are in a thread pertaining to politics, how is such a policy to instituted? What if it is wrong?

In the end, your sugestion is both self-fulfilling and self-defeating because as I have pointed out, everything is toxic in large enough quantities. So in effect you already have your answer.

Then again, maybe we should hold up the rest of the environment to the same litmus test and get rid of everything that is toxic. That would mean everything, depending on your exposure. Nature can be quite deadly.

What is particularly daunting is the unfortunate and somewhat arrogarant stance of too many so-called environmentalists to call for a complete end, a total ban on any activity they deem as "unnatural" while they enjoy the fruits and perks of all that nasty activity, such as the materials, the processes the medical technology and so on that they take for granted.

When I say "natural" I mean the situation that would exist in the environment if man's brain didn't evolve past the mental capacity of a deer thus having much less of an impact on the environment.

I accept these meanings from the dictionary:
na·ture n. - A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality.
nat·u·ral adj. - Present in or produced by nature.

With repect to your first point, it is wishful thinking. It is a fantasy of sorts, and as I have asked, what would it prove? Maybe you hold the view that humanity is better off dead and gone because it would make for a better environment according to you. It should be of no surprise that some of us do not share this attitude.

As for the dictionary definition of nature, that is a word. What we are attempting to speak of here is something far more vast and complex. This word label is something we create in order to pocket up diverse and wide-ranging phenomena into a simple statement; it's a linguistic convenience, and you should not confuse the two for being the same thing. And as I have suggested earlier, unless you can prove that human beings, our presence on this world, and our capacities are not a part of this world and its processes, then we are by your provided definitions "natural." We are a product of this planet and continue to be part of it. Since we are present in and produced by this world, we are part of it and subject to the same physical laws. The same of course goes for our brains, and the resulting capacity for imagination, our grasp of physical reality, our capacity to create and our interaction with the world around us. It is all "natural."

Have to run at this moment, will add on to these thoughts.

 

[EnviroTO]

What is the difference between a zoo and a nature preserve in your opinion? I think a lot more people would agree with my definition of what a nature preserve is and what the goals of creating one are than there are people that would accept your more flexible definition of it.

Our evolution is a product of natural selection, our brains are are the product of natural selection and as a result, our thinking and our capacities are a product of the same evolutionary process.

Some ailments that are more increasingly common are a result of the fact that our evolutionary process is over. With eyewear, technology, healthcare, social systems, etc there is no longer a natural selection that kills off the weak traits in our population. Blind people aren't killed off, deaf people aren't killed off, disabled people aren't killed off, and increasingly with medical improvements people with diseases are not killed off.

natural selection n. - The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

Natural evolution is a result of natural selection. Any other type of evolution is artificial (i.e. outside natural evolution). I'm not saying that we should have natural selection in the human population by getting rid of government and trying to get back to anarchy but we should recognize the fact that we evolved to a point where we are now in control and should try to minimize our impact on the natural environment so that other species may continue to evolve naturally.

Are you suggesting that in the meantime we should simply bring everything to a complete halt?

No. Aiming to have natural areas outside the influence of human activity areas and to have human activity become fully sustainable is a long term goal... something we should continually strive towards. Just like government should try to create a perfect society... it isn't possible in four years, not eight, not ever but to not be making measureable steps towards that goal means going the opposite direction.

What is particularly daunting is the unfortunate and somewhat arrogarant stance of too many so-called environmentalists to call for a complete end, a total ban on any activity they deem as "unnatural" while they enjoy the fruits and perks of all that nasty activity. The one's I know are happy to use computers, but they are chock full of "unnatural" substances, including plastic polymers and a variety of materials that have been developed and fabricated by human beings. They better get out of the city while they are at it, because it, too, is quite "unnatural;" a form of human organization only thousands of years old, filled with unnatural activities and substances. But I don't see them leaving in droves. They take advantage of the fruits of that type of living.

Hence the idea of human activity areas and nature preserves. Man can continue to develop all that is unnatural yet nature can continue to exist. The controls most environmentalist seek to employ are not contrary to technological advancements and the creation of unnatural substances... the controls seek to ensure these technological advancements and unnatural substances (using the dictionary term specified) have no impact in any kind to nature outside the areas of human activity.

As for the dictionary definition of nature, that is a word. What we are attempting to speak of here is something far more vast and complex.

You might be talking about something complex... I'm talking about black box high level objectives. I'm talking about the objective that life in wilderness preserves, national parks, and nature preserves should be natural in that dictionary sense. That is why nature preserves are created. They aren't created to be a fun park or to be a place to take great pictures... they are created to preserve nature in the dictionary sense. The only way to ensure that natural areas are indeed natural is to get a handle on what we are doing to the environment, what the current state of the environment is was and will be, and to start managing it.

 

[Mislav]

So what are you arguing exactly? That ADD doesn't exist or that there are ways to treat it other than ritalin?

I'm saying is that there is no way that ADD occurs in 10 % of children to the point where they are need in of ritalin. Sure there may be extreme cases but drugging a large part of the population can lead to unpredicatable consequences.

 

[bizorky]

natural selection n. - The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

It is not sufficient to quote a dictionary as a means to expressing the full meaning, descriptive capacity and strength of natural selection. Plus, you should note very carefully the word "tend." This is pointing towards, for example, the great variability within ecosystems to support species that are otherwise specifically adapted to only one ecological niche. Any small change could see such a species go extinct; but if no such small change arrives, this species may tend to persist if there is local stability to its food availability and the numbers of potential predators. Again, to lift and wield a limited dictionary description is to pretty much negate the huge range and descriptive power of natural section. In other words, you are seeing a tree and missing the forest.

Some ailments that are more increasingly common are a result of the fact that our evolutionary process is over. With eyewear, technology, healthcare, social systems, etc there is no longer a natural selection that kills off the weak traits in our population.

Funny, but I would view the development of eyewear, pharmaceuticals and so on as an impressive adaptive capacity of ours, a product of the complex evolutionary and selection processes, a process that has pushed the development of our human brains and our capacity to imagine and create (a wonderful means of survival and continued adaptation). As for our evolution being over, so long as we exist in the environment in which we evolved, our evolution is never over. Again we get back to that word "natural." We are part of the "natural" world, everything we do is simply an extension of this fact, and we remain as potentially affected by the myriad of selective forces as any other species, including the poor adaptive choices on our part.

Also, if you are going to state that it is a fact that evolution is over for human beings, you are going to have to do better than simply stating an opinion that it is so.

Hence the idea of human activity areas and nature preserves. Man can continue to develop all that is unnatural yet nature can continue to exist.

You persist in cleaving the world into the "natural" and the "unnatural," yet provide no source of extra-natural powers to account for these supposed "unnatural" capacities of ours. Our capacities are "natural" because they are part of who we are as a species on this planet. So again, all these things that you are going on about as being "unnatural" are a product of, and part of, this planetary environment. Why is this difficult for you to understand?

You might be talking about something complex... I'm talking about black box high level objectives. I'm talking about the objective that life in wilderness preserves, national parks, and nature preserves should be natural in that dictionary sense

What are black box high level objectives?

Wilderness preserves are human fabrications and stem from this self-deceptive notion that we are "stewards" of the earth with special powers and responsibilities. The fact is, for good or for bad, it us imagining these responsibilities based upon the results of our other, more questionable, actions.

Aiming to have natural areas outside the influence of human activity areas and to have human activity become fully sustainable is a long term goal... something we should continually strive towards.

Again, these remain idealized notions. Even from your definition of it, the minute we hive off such nature preserves, we've created nothing more than artificial demarkations between the so-called natural and unnatural worlds. From even this point of view, those "natural" nature preserve would be an artifice, a creation of ours. So what if it is "natural" or "unnatural?" It all ends up being the same thing: the planet earth.