CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
In order for this to be true, technology would have to exist in a vacuum outside of the pressures of natural selection. Far from rendering natural selection obsolete, technology is a byproduct of natural selection; thus far, nature has selected for technological advancement.
Just curious then- do you consider such things as selective breeding to still be natural selection, with humans being the source of selective pressure?
I can understand if you do, but it seems to make the 'natural' portion of natural selection somewhat of a redundant term.
I don't believe the term is necessarily redundant; natural vs. artificial is used to distinguish between that which came about in nature without requiring human intervention, and that which was created using human intelligence.
It's only redundant if all of the actions of human intelligence are considered to be a part of nature. This is the case in Jace's assertion- one that I don't agree with, personally, but that ultimately stems from our views on whether or not free will exists; in the absence of free will, all of mans activity is certainly natural. If free will is real, then a distinction between natural processes and human processes is needed.
The term 'natural' is rather hazy these days, though, given the overlap between nature and human activity in several fields, such as domesticated livestock and genetic engineering.
I'll agree with you that it is often misused, and it's misuses are also overused.
This does not constitute a dispute to my statement, and you make an assertion that you have not backed up in any way.
We could certainly discuss it if you wish, but not on this particular thread as it's far off topic.
This actually interests me, because there is strong evidence for both sides of the free will question, and you assert with confidence that free will is an illusion; Jace at least expresses it as his own belief and doesn't insist on it as a basic premise for discussion.
Remember, though, that free will is generally accepted as a fact and much of what we do is predicated upon it as a basic premise. As the one claiming otherwise, the burden of proof will be on you.
Lol, does not constitute a dispute? Idk if you've noticed, but this isn't exactly a formal debate forum. And no I didn't back up my assertion, as I said I didn’t want to digress too far from the OP.
I'm glad it interests you; it’s in interesting topic to me as well, although I find it hard to believe that there’s strong evidence for both sides. Yes I am extremely confident in my ability to prove this fact.
Yes, I know that popular opinion says that free will is fact; however that still doesn’t omit any burden to provide evidence on those that posit its existence. Regardless, I’m not afraid to share the burden with you.
It may not be a formal debate forum, but I like to treat each debate, and even each sub-discussion within a debate as its own entity.
The topic of discussion is a serious one, rather than something frivolous, and the tone of this particular thread of discussion has been on the serious side; I see no problem with keeping things serious and formal in this thread, even if in others we're just joking around.
Yes. The term natural is inherently redundant because all things come from nature, including humans and our actions. The distinction of "artificial" is a fallacious attempt to construe what humans construct as extra-natural.
It may or may not be fallacious to consider human action as being extra-natural, true. The answer to that question ultimately depends on what human nature (ooh, theres that word again) actually is; there are good arguments and evidence both for and against free will, among others things; we already disagree here, so I don't think debating on that particular topic is going to cover any new ground.
That said- even if humans and all human activity are assumed to be a part of nature, it is still useful to distinguish between what is a result of human activity and what is not; maybe it's just the choice of terms that are poor. I suspect that the choice of terms has a lot to do with how over and misused they are.
Viewing human action as extra-natural is not possibly fallacious; it is wholly incorrect. What human nature is has nothing to do with the matter; the real question is: are human being from nature? If the answer is yes, then what we do is of nature and therefore natural.
I agree that being able to identify and distinguish human behavior for what it is has value, but the choice of terms is poor. Over-use makes this worse, but misuse is inherent to the use of the term in this context.
You're actually wrong here, because you're missing the definition of nature. Take a look, and cross reference a few other dictionaries if you like.
Nature, as a term, exists specifically to differentiate between the results of human processes and the results of non-human processes. I believe that the choice of terms is poor- NOW, because of the way the definitions have been conflated and the way it is misused extensively. But it was not a poor term when it was initially adopted.
Just because humans come from nature does not necessarily mean they are still of nature. There are numerous things that share very few properties with their origins and really shouldn't be classified amongst them. Consider, say, gasoline- it is a product refined from petroleum, which stems primarily from ancient plant matter. Should we call gasoline a plant because of this?
I believe your issue with the term has to do with you attributing one of the many misuses of the terms to it; it is not, in fact, an attempt to separate humans from the rest of the world- it is merely a distinction between what is human and what is not.
But back to our main disagreement- it is fundamentally tied up with human nature, and specifically the question of free will. If free will does not exist, and we simply have a very good illusion of it as we go about our entirely deterministic lives, then any distinction between human activity and 'nature' as you define it is erroneous. However, if free will does exist, and we are able to actively make choices and decisions in a non-deterministic manner, then there is certainly a need to distinguish between what came about due to 'nature' and what came about due to the influence of human intelligence and will.
You're actually wrong here, because you're missing the definition of nature. [...] Nature, as a term, exists specifically to differentiate between the results of human processes and the results of non-human processes.
Touche. I will concede that.
I believe that the choice of terms is poor- NOW, because of the way the definitions have been conflated and the way it is misused extensively. But it was not a poor term when it was initially adopted. & I believe your issue with the term has to do with you attributing one of the many misuses of the terms to it; it is not, in fact, an attempt to separate humans from the rest of the world- it is merely a distinction between what is human and what is not.
My issue with the term nature is not that it has become abused, but that it established a false distinction to begin with. The "mere" distinction between human and non-human is innately an act of separation, and one which I would contend is harmful.
Just because humans come from nature does not necessarily mean they are still of nature. [...] Should we call gasoline a plant because of this?
Naturally, we would not call gasoline a plant... but would you seriously maintain that it is not of nature?
But back to our main disagreement- it is fundamentally tied up with human nature, and specifically the question of free will. [...] a need to distinguish between what came about due to 'nature' and what came about due to the influence of human intelligence and will.
I do not believe in free will, and I do find the distinction erroneous. If free will does exist, then it remains limited as some human thought and behavior are determined by neurological processes beyond our control (this is a thing we know for a fact). So long as that is the case, then the distinction between "nature" and humanity is hazy at best. Therefore, even upon your free will premise I would find "nature" a redundant and detrimental term.
Natural selection is only irrelevant when all couples produce the same offspring and all people live long enough to produce offspring. Technology has reduced the culling effect of natural selection, but it is not gone.
By irrelevant, do you mean ‘not needed?’ or something else?
I’m not exactly sure what you mean.
The only thing I can think of that would render natural selection irrelevant would be to eliminate the need for survival and procreation. Natural selection is a life forms way of adapting to its surrounding environment. Technology can contribute in shaping us or other life forms considering the presence in our environment and I can even see it helping us survive where we wouldn’t rely as much on natural selection for survival (ie instead of adapting to cold environments by growing fur, we wear a coat) but natural selection, that is the "shuffling" of genes and possibility of mutation in order to adapt, will always be a part of life forms.
I suppose it would render us weak, unable to survive without technology in the long run, and there’s the possibility of creating offspring through the use of gene manipulation to where we wouldn’t need to reproduce in the current methods… but where’s the fun in that?
