The distinction is made because it is useful for us to know what the consequences of our effects are. But thinking beyond those terms, it's quite clear that humans are a part of nature, and thus are a natural force.
Not just for consequences, but, because we, as variables, affect the timescale of our external environment in ways that cannot be
as simply computed as 'natural events'...say, predictability of climate change (forecasting into future generations). Humans is a huge confounder to this. If we look at it graphically, there's a huge spike in correlation with the advent of the technological era. And, there's no cleanly, clear-cut extrapolation for future predictions with the rogue piece we call, humans.
Either way, I hope you're clear now on what I've been referring to in terms of human versus natural force. Again, we can go into an indepth philsophical and socio-scientific discussion regarding humans and their merit as definitionally being a 'natural' force....but, I shall let you engage this first, if you so desire. I had strictly set out to describe via piggy-backing on science and the scientific community....(not to challenge, at least here, their terminologies)
Of course technically it doesn't have a position or a purpose. But imagining it as a conscious force, it's goal would be for survival of the species that it is watching over, yes?
Not really, more so... survival
of the fittest to the environment. Which merits a discussion on the W5 of the environment, and...how. See above discouse on distinction of 'types of activities'
FPS. First Person Shooter. Basically
this.
Thanks! HAY-YA!!! Pow, pow!
For more common example (but still a game
): it'd be like in chess. You have to checkmate the opponents king, but it doesn't matter the specific series of moves that led up to that, only that you did. Winning or losing is defined only by if the king is in checkmate or not.
Chess has an end-goal, a motive, to checkmate the king. Natural selection, as a process, has no such end goal. It works to adapt to what is.
What is is not as easily understood as a checkmate, esp. when the
what is becomes imbalanced/unpredictable...such as with the rate change due to human/artificial activity.
The broader you define the "place", the harder it is to empty that place.
Depends on what you start off with, how condusive it is, it is
becoming. More complex even due to multi-variable analysis. Hence, IMO, harder to guage exactly how, when we tip off towards the empty side of the glass, rather than half
full.
If you define place as the entire Earth, then I doubt we'd have much of an ability to wipe out life completely on Earth. We could significantly set it back, and when it rebuilds it would be much different. But likely we couldn't wipe it completely.
Can you guarantee that with such confidence, given the unpredictability and potential for capacity in those animals we call humans and their inventions/toys [and inkling to try the toys out in their playground called: earth]?
And even then, you could go from a broader perspective, and say "Why is life relevant in the first place?"
Well, to put it simply, if we're talking stictly of the theory of evolution and natural selection....as I pointed out before. We kinda need living things. That was an assumed premise of our discussion. No?
I agree. But then, are you arguing that it is bad for us and thus we should do something or not? Because I thought you said earlier you weren't...
I was responding to this thought of yours, from the previous post of yours, V, which I think is a non-sequitur, hence respond in kind (i.e., subjectively describe what it means in terms of us
humans commenting on
human roles...
so what indeed, what makes us special, what affords us even the notion to think of such a term as 'superiority'?)
Perhaps salmon is just destined to be a loser, with humans superior in the end. Perhaps there will eventually be another organism that will surpass humans and cause our extinction? Basically, so what?
Human superiority is a special kind of superiority...one that is the burden, responsibility* and priviledge* of the human critically-thinking mind.
* (I subjectively believe)
As soon as you introduce the word superiority, there's a heirarchy you prescribe to humans (and humanity). It is again a commentary afforded by our critically thinking
mind. The unique feature in humans - the mind-blowing (pardon the pun) capacity of the human mind.
Which affords us thoughts like: Us being on the top of the food chain. Do you thinks lions realize where on the food chain they fall? That there is even a food chain? All they know is deer. Kill. Eat. Not, I am a lion, I hold greater power over deer, in the grander scheme of this thing called the animal kingdom, hence, can kill.
So, you brought in
human superiority, and I commented on it subsequently, not as part of the larger discussion b/w us at hand (hence my aside that, I'm commenting subjectively now)
