Evolution revisited

[Phantasee]

So there's a letter in the Edmonton Journal today. I thought I'd reply to it, but I wanted to make sure it was a solid rebuttal. Maybe you folks can give me a hand?

Science tells us that humans are a result of natural evolution. If so, then human action is perfectly natural and any impact on the climate is part of the natural environment. How can something natural adversely affect nature?
Richard Garside, Edmonton

I was thinking of talking about natural selection and sexual selection and artificial selection, and how evolution isn't Social Darwinism.

I'd type more, but I have to get to class... I'll be back this afternoon or evening though.

[Jim Raynor]

I think this guy is trying to argue against environmentalism and the belief in global warming, or something. Anyway, just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good for us humans. It would be perfectly natural for us to run around with no clothes, medicine, technology, food, etc., and die young.

[Rye]

That's such a retarded argument; yes, we are products of nature, and artificial structures are arguably part of the wider natural world, but nature has adverse effects on living things all the time. That's what people are talking about when they attach value statements to phenomena like climate change, tsunamis or comets landing in New York.

[Teleros]

Sure we're part of the natural order in the sense that we evolved, but how many other creatures on Earth can alter it so comprehensively on the timescales used by humans? Nothing - hence the claim that such alterations are unnatural. So, whilst we may be "natural", our actions aren't.

[Jim Raynor]

It doesn't even matter if something is natural or unnatural. It's a fallacy to equate "natural" to "good."

[Teleros]

Depends on whether you believe nature has a moral compass or anything. The extinction of the dinosaurs just "was" - it's only good or bad if you start apply morals to it (eg good = let us evolve, bad = wiped out lotsa creatures). Certainly sounds like that's where this guy is coming from...

[Feil]

Tomfoolery with multiple definitions. Nature can mean "the universe and how it works", or it can mean "the interrelated system of living things for a given time and place". We can't do anything to the universe and the way it works, because everything we do is just a manifestation of how the universe works. But we can screw with the system perfectly well.

If we used two different words for the two definitions of nature, this would be exposed as the non sequitor it is.

[Darth Wong]

Science tells us that humans are a result of natural evolution. If so, then human action is perfectly natural and any impact on the climate is part of the natural environment. How can something natural adversely affect nature?
Richard Garside, Edmonton

Religion tells us that humans are the result of God's divine plan. If so, then human action is perfectly aligned with God's plan and if I punch Richard Garside in the face, then that is part of God's plan as well. How can God's plan be wrong?

[SirNitram]

Technically, Global Warming does not 'adversely affect nature'. It would, however, greatly harm human civilization and alot of other species.

[UCBooties]

Technically, Global Warming does not 'adversely affect nature'. It would, however, greatly harm human civilization and alot of other species.

I'm curious about this. What are you defining as an adverse effect on nature? What is the threshold for these effects or are you saying that it is impossible to adversely affect nature?

I don't mean to bait, it's just that your phrasing is a touch ambiguous.

[Teleros]

Well you're bumping off a few species here but letting others thrive over there.

[Straha]

The argument is a sane one if used correctly. Namely against people who follow a hippie-esque mentality and argue that anything man kind does is harmful to nature, and that we should all protect any and all nature anyway we can.

As anything beyond that it falls flat on its face because it simply has no substance.

[OmegaGuy]

The material to make up the earth came from a distant supernova explosion. That obviously means that we should try to blow up the sun.

[mr friendly guy]

I was thinking of talking about natural selection and sexual selection and artificial selection, and how evolution isn't Social Darwinism.

I don't think he is arguing against evolution per se. He seems to be using evolution to support his argument that natural = not harmful, thus global warming = natural = not harmful.

How can something natural adversely affect nature?
Richard Garside, Edmonton

Heard of mass extinctions by any chance.

[Surlethe]

Science tells us that humans are a result of natural evolution. If so, then human action is perfectly natural and any impact on the climate is part of the natural environment. How can something natural adversely affect nature?

Richard Garside, Edmonton

He's absolutely correct. Global warming doesn't adversely affect "nature" any more than a huge asteroid strike does. What it does adversely affect is human civilization, which is why we ought not to be warming the globe.

Nature is in a constant state of flux. Hell, the laws of nature are generally phrased as differential equations -- e.g., F = dp/dt, or delxE = -pB/pt.

[Darth Servo]

Does this idiot actually think nature can't be self-destructive?

[TheLemur]

How can something natural adversely affect nature?

See the Permian extinction, which was far worse than anything humans are even likely to do (short of blowing up the planet altogether). I believe it was something like 95% of all species that went extinct?

Religion tells us that humans are the result of God's divine plan. If so, then human action is perfectly aligned with God's plan and if I punch Richard Garside in the face, then that is part of God's plan as well. How can God's plan be wrong?

Religious nuts react to questions like this by pulling into well-worn fruit loops. For example:

- How can the Holocaust be part of the plan of a good God?
- Because when Adam sinned, he let evil into the world, and God allows evil because humans have free will.
- But it wasn't the will of the Jews to get mass murdered in concentration camps.
- It was the will of Satan, and Satan became the prince of this Earth when he fell from Heaven.
- So why does God allow Satan to pull shit like that?
- Because humanity voluntarily turned away from God to Satan and so gave Satan control.
- But nobody actually chose to allow evil to happen in their lives.
- Everyone is a sinner, and the wages of sin is death, hence they have allowed evil to happen by sinning.
- So why does God punish people so heavily for "sins"?
- Because God's perfect Justice demands it.
- And so why do bad things still happen to Christians? Aren't they supposed to be absolved of sin?
- Because that's part of God's plan.
- How can the Holocaust be part of the plan of a good God?
- Et cetera, et cetera ad nauseam.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Religious nuts react to questions like this by pulling into well-worn fruit loops. For example:

I think I see your problem.

- How can the Holocaust be part of the plan of a good God?

You ask why it would be part of the plan of a good God, when you should be saying, 'If the Holocaust is part of Gods plan he is evil'

- Because when Adam sinned, he let evil into the world, and God allows evil because humans have free will.

God's already deprived someone of Free Will to show off his abilities, see the Pharaoh.

- It was the will of Satan, and Satan became the prince of this Earth when he fell from Heaven.

So why did God create Satan?

- Because humanity voluntarily turned away from God to Satan and so gave Satan control.

How did they turn away?

- Everyone is a sinner, and the wages of sin is death, hence they have allowed evil to happen by sinning.

How is everyone a sinner, how has everyone sinned, it's statistically impossible for everyone to have sinned.

- Because God's perfect Justice demands it.

How is it 'Justice' if you're punished for victimless crimes for all eternity?

- Because that's part of God's plan.

If God's already planned everything out then he's already denied people free will and is forcing them to commit evil and punishing them for something HE made them do.

[TheLemur]

I'll continue presenting the Religious Nut point of view (note that I am not a Christian/Muslim/Jew and don't believe in any of this):

You ask why it would be part of the plan of a good God, when you should be saying, 'If the Holocaust is part of Gods plan he is evil'

- But God is perfectly Good.
- How do we know he is good?
- We can see it in the beauty of His Plan.
- But wouldn't God's plan include the Holocaust?
- Because when Adam sinned, etc.

God's already deprived someone of Free Will to show off his abilities, see the Pharaoh.

- That was a one time incident and an exception was made for whatever reason.

So why did God create Satan?

- God created Satan as part of His Plan.
- So God had a plan that he knew would result in suffering.
- But God's Plan could only exclude suffering if he eliminated free will.
- But it wasn't the will of the Jews to get mass murdered in concentration camps, etc.

How did they turn away?

- They turned away when they chose to commit sin.
- But why did all this bad stuff happen because of "sin"? How does that follow?
- God's perfect Justice requires that the wages of sin is death, etc.

How is everyone a sinner, how has everyone sinned, it's statistically impossible for everyone to have sinned.

- God's definition of "sin", in addition to all the regular "bad" things, also includes bad intent, so if you desire to do something bad, you've already committed the crime according to God's "perfect justice".

How is it 'Justice' if you're punished for victimless crimes for all eternity?

- Because that's the way God said it was and God is perfect, so we can't question it.

If God's already planned everything out then he's already denied people free will and is forcing them to commit evil and punishing them for something HE made them do.

- But, you see, when God created us, he gave us the magical gift of Free Will (tm), so that even though we have free will, God still knows what we are going to choose and so we are still following God's Plan (tm).

[Ritterin Sophia]

- But God is perfectly Good.
- How do we know he is good?
- We can see it in the beauty of His Plan.
- But wouldn't God's plan include the Holocaust?
- Because when Adam sinned, etc.

How do you see it in His plan, his plan has caused suffering, he killed millions of innocent babies with his Flood alone.

- That was a one time incident and an exception was made for whatever reason.

For what reason?

- God created Satan as part of His Plan.
- So God had a plan that he knew would result in suffering.
- But God's Plan could only exclude suffering if he eliminated free will.
- But it wasn't the will of the Jews to get mass murdered in concentration camps, etc.

If he can't eliminate Evil without retaining free will then he isn't omnipotent.

- They turned away when they chose to commit sin.
- But why did all this bad stuff happen because of "sin"? How does that follow?
- God's perfect Justice requires that the wages of sin is death, etc.

Why?

- God's definition of "sin", in addition to all the regular "bad" things, also includes bad intent, so if you desire to do something bad, you've already committed the crime according to God's "perfect justice".

That's still statistically impossible since babies have died minutes after they're born.

- Because that's the way God said it was and God is perfect, so we can't question it.

How can he be perfect if he gets angry and is jealous, those are negative attributes.

- But, you see, when God created us, he gave us the magical gift of Free Will (tm), so that even though we have free will, God still knows what we are going to choose and so we are still following God's Plan (tm).

You're still limiting God's power, if he can't get rid of Evil without getting rid of Free Will he is not omnipotent.

[B5B7]

Nature can be neither created nor destroyed nor harmed - in the sense that nature is the universe.
If we use a more limited definition - the ecology can't be destroyed either, only changed.
If we further refine our definition - nature as being the world as it is at present, then it can be changed - any given change may be beneficial or neutral or harmful to particular environments and creatures [& what is harmful for one species may be beneficial for another].

At one time the natural state for the world was an atmosphere that had no oxygen.
Some further interpretations of the word nature - humans are a product of nature, but what humans do is not therefore automatically natural.
And on the other side a dagger is artificial but can produce a natural result - bleeding. This is especially so if an insane person who believed all human activity is natural decided to naturally use a dagger to naturally kill this Richard Garston.

[Surlethe]

Some further interpretations of the word nature - humans are a product of nature, but what humans do is not therefore automatically natural.

I often see "natural" defined as simply the complement of "man-made". It's an unfortunate byproduct of our egocentric way of looking at the world; after all, it was only a couple of centuries ago that we as a species started to realize that we aren't so special after all.

[wolveraptor]

How can something natural adversely affect nature?

How would global-warming adversely affect nature? It adversely affects us. Nature will be fine, thank you very much.

[Admiral Valdemar]

He's absolutely correct. Global warming doesn't adversely affect "nature" any more than a huge asteroid strike does. What it does adversely affect is human civilization, which is why we ought not to be warming the globe.

Nature is in a constant state of flux. Hell, the laws of nature are generally phrased as differential equations -- e.g., F = dp/dt, or delxE = -pB/pt.

As George Carlin said, it isn't nature who is in trouble. It's us who are in fucking hot water. The Earth went along quite happily doing its own thing for near 5 billion years before we turned up.

[SirNitram]

Technically, Global Warming does not 'adversely affect nature'. It would, however, greatly harm human civilization and alot of other species.

I'm curious about this. What are you defining as an adverse effect on nature? What is the threshold for these effects or are you saying that it is impossible to adversely affect nature?

I don't mean to bait, it's just that your phrasing is a touch ambiguous.

Oh, it's entirely theoretically possible to adversrely affect nature. But nothing humanity can current do will be noticable as damaging in a million or two years.

'Nature' is a very, very big place.