A State of Nature

[Sucumbio]

This is an argument of fundamentals. On one hand, we have examples of technology which are diametrically opposed to nature. Things like, cars for instance which necessitate other technologies like roads. Which in turn necessitates concrete, perhaps, or "black-top." Then on the other hand we have examples of technology mimicking nature. Here's an interesting list of a few examples.

http://www.evolutionoftruth.com/msc/beenther.htm

Now of course the above source is trying to use these clever "links" between nature and technology as a basis for proving ID. I am NOT interested in that aspect of things.

My ... gripe has been now for quite a while that people often cite technology as being the opposite of nature. That... if it's constructed, by humans, that it's suddenly not meant to be here, or at the very least, must be held with utmost responsibility to reduce the impact upon "Mother Earth." Now I'm all for being responsible with mankind's creations. It does us no good to damage our planet to the point we can't live on it anymore. But, I take issue with this idea that because "man" made it, it's not natural anymore.

We're not aliens! We are born -of- the Earth, originating from single-celled organisms HERE ON EARTH.

Therefore, we are as natural as a flower, or a tree, or a bird, or a cow, or a fish, or the wind.

We are as connected to "Mother Earth" as everything else that makes up "Mother Earth."

And so too are our technologies.

There. The point is made. Skyscrapers are just as natural as Trees, why? Because we made them, and the Earth made us. There IS no disconnect. The only thing that our intellects have afforded us, is the ability to cobble together natural elements (or invented ones) into constructions that weren't here before we made them. This means only that we have a responsibility to ensure that these creations don't cause any permanent harm to the surrounding environment.

And it's not as if this is unheard "in nature." Beavers, for instance. The beaver dam is a construction, using materials... sticks. Nature didn't make the dam outright, it didn't grow there out of the river bed. An animal constructed it. All of humanity's inventions amassed, are... like tons of beaver dams.

 

[gm jack]

I agree entirely. Even something as simple as a bird's nest was made by one organism changing it's environment to suit itself better. If you want to make a distinction between man-made and natural, it either has to include the creations of all species, or it is entirely arbitrary.

 

[rvkevin]

This is really only semantics. However, the only way we differentiate between natural vs. artificial is if it is made by humans, so this is why the distinction is made.

 

[Dre89]

Interesting post, but what are we suppose to debate? Whether technology is natural or not?

I debated a girl recently who argued that technology is unnatural, and therefore shouldn't be used to hunt animals.

However, the capacity for technology in humans is natural. What's special about human technology is that it has the potential to destroy or corrupt what is natural.

 

[Deleted member]

I go back and forth on this, but if things like cars and buildings are considered natural, then we may as well throw away the word (or at least this meaning of it), since everything is therefore natural.

As far as I know, the most common definition of natural is anything which is unaffected by intelligent beings. So things like cars and buildings, as well as things like beaver dams and bird nests can all be considered unnatural. Things like trees and oceans which are not created by an intelligence (other than god depending on your perspective), are considered natural.

 

[blazedaces]

Ugh... we've been over this before. Any appeal to nature is a logical fallacy. Any conversation that even discusses the word natural seriously is an appeal to nature argument (and thus a logical fallacy). Again, the reason for this is because no one ever provides a good, strict definition of natural. Why do you think this conversation has SOOOO many discrepancies and soooo many people disagreeing over the subject?

Because NO one agrees what is and isn't natural... because there's very little way to ever define natural so that it actually fits any argument!

I go back and forth on this, but if things like cars and buildings are considered natural, then we may as well throw away the word (or at least this meaning of it), since everything is therefore natural.

As far as I know, the most common definition of natural is anything which is unaffected by intelligent beings. So things like cars and buildings, as well as things like beaver dams and bird nests can all be considered unnatural. Things like trees and oceans which are not created by an intelligence (other than god depending on your perspective), are considered natural.

Here's a perfect example. How do you define intelligence? Beavers? Really? Is an ant hive unnatural? According to your definition it is... if we continue down this path there's a way to argue quite a lot of things are unnatural that would never make sense to be called thus.

I DARE anyone to come up with an actual definition of natural that doesn't run into loopholes. There's a reason it's considered a logical fallacy guys...

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

I would define intelligence as any animal, even if they're as dumb as an ant, so I would consider ant hills to be unnatural. Plants are living, but they do not actually think, so I wouldn't define them as intelligent beings.

I agree that there is currently no solid definition of natural (in this context) which is consistent with what everybody thinks. Many different definitions are out there.

I would define natural as describing anything which was not created by an intelligent being (intelligent being referring to anything that thinks at all).

Edit: So many paragraphs starting with "I", maybe I should look at that in myself.

 

[blazedaces]

I would define intelligence as any animal, even if they're as dumb as an ant, so I would consider ant hills to be unnatural. Plants are living, but they do not actually think, so I wouldn't define them as intelligent beings.

I agree that there is currently no solid definition of natural (in this context) which is consistent with what everybody thinks. Many different definitions are out there.

I would define natural as describing anything which was not created by an intelligent being (intelligent being referring to anything that thinks at all).

Edit: So many paragraphs starting with "I", maybe I should look at that in myself.

Well, this is starting to get fun, so let's go with it. I'm going to digress into the topic of trying to define intelligence. As one interested in AI (artificial intelligence) I want to ask you, can machines think right now? Would you consider any machine we currently have to be "intelligent"?

If not, what would be required for a machine to be intelligent?

Let me ask you though, is cooked food inherently unnatural? It combines natural objects that was created by an intelligent being. Is the statement "eat natural foods" even possible?

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

Well, this is starting to get fun, so let's go with it. I'm going to digress into the topic of trying to define intelligence. As one interested in AI (artificial intelligence) I want to ask you, can machines think right now? Would you consider any machine we currently have to be "intelligent"?

If not, what would be required for a machine to be intelligent?

Let me ask you though, is cooked food inherently unnatural? It combines natural objects that was created by an intelligent being. Is the statement "eat natural foods" even possible?

-blazed

I wouldn't define a robot with AI as living, even if it were very realistic, since it would still just be following the parameters set by its creator.

Once food has been cooked (intentionally) I would say it's unnatural. The only way it can really be "natural" is if it is eaten raw.

Something like a vegetarian salad would be an unnatural food item which is made of natural food.

 

[blazedaces]

I wouldn't define a robot with AI as living, even if it were very realistic, since it would still just be following the parameters set by its creator.

So for something to be intelligent it must be living? Why?

Once food has been cooked (intentionally) I would say it's unnatural. The only way it can really be "natural" is if it is eaten raw.

What's the purpose of this definition of natural then? What would be the point of distinguishing between natural and unnatural objects? [highlight]One could argue that children are unnatural, since they are created by an intelligent being[/highlight] (us)... and furthermore that nearly every creature that has intelligent is unnatural, since they are children of creatures with intelligence. Do you see how this cycle becomes foolish?

Something like a vegetarian salad would be an unnatural food item which is made of natural food.

Isn't this a redundant statement? Aren't all foods at some level composed of natural food items?

 

[Deleted member]

So for something to be intelligent it must be living? Why?

The first 2 definitions I got off google for intelligent were

1. * having the capacity for thought and reason especially to a high degree (Princeton)

2. Intelligence is an umbrella term describing a property of the mind comprehending related abilities, such as the capacities for abstract thought, reasoning, planning and problem solving, the use of language, and to learn. (Wikipedia)

Both of those definitions imply that something has to be able to think and reason, which is something which can only be done by living creatures.

What's the purpose of this definition of natural then? What would be the point of distinguishing between natural and unnatural objects? [highlight]One could argue that children are unnatural, since they are created by an intelligent being[/highlight] (us)... and furthermore that nearly every creature that has intelligent is unnatural, since they are children of creatures with intelligence. Do you see how this cycle becomes foolish?

I'm not claiming there's any particular purpose to this definition. The word natural is usually just used to define what has been created by people and what hasn't. Like with most words there isn't any particular purpose to the word.

As for whether or not human beings are natural, I never made the claim that humans were actually natural. The word unnatural has a negative connotation which really isn't necessary. The fact that something is natural or unnatural doesn't necessarily have any positive or negative effect on its value or intelligence. I see no reason why something which is unnatural cannot be intelligent.

Isn't this a redundant statement? Aren't all foods at some level composed of natural food items?

Yes, but when they are combined into a certain arrangement by an intelligence that combined item becomes unnatural.

 

[blazedaces]

Well then in that case we agree about the word natural.

But with intelligence, why can thinking and reasoning only be done by living creatures?

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

Well then in that case we agree about the word natural.

But with intelligence, why can thinking and reasoning only be done by living creatures?

-blazed

There isn't really any basis for that claim to be honest. I haven't done enough research into that. As far as I know genuine artificial intelligence is impossible since whatever programming there is will still be all that the program will rely on. As for whether there can be intelligence in other forms I don't know. As of now I can't conceive of anything which can be non-living but have intelligence, but who knows what will happen in the future?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well, I'm taking AI at my school right now, so this is relevant to me.

Just a tidbit on AI (bit of a tangent here, but may be relevant):

There are two kinds of AI: strong AI and weak AI.

Weak AI is basically just a program that knows how to do a limited amount of actions based off a bunch of code (often "if" statements) written by a human.

Strong AI is what we generally think of as AI. Strong AI means that the program has general knowledge and can function similarly or superiorly to a human. Pure strong AI has obviously never been achieved. According to my teacher, strong AI cannot be coded by a human. The program must write itself because the human would not be able to put all of their intelligence into it in a non-biased manner.

Anyways, continue.

 

[Namaste]

I wouldn't define a robot with AI as living, even if it were very realistic, since it would still just be following the parameters set by its creator.

Would we not be considered the same, even if you took out the creator? We're not capable of doing things outside of our parameters.

 

[Deleted member]

Would we not be considered the same, even if you took out the creator? We're not capable of doing things outside of our parameters.

If you're referring to determinism then I agree, I didn't think about how that relates to this, hmm.

I guess that the only difference between life and non-life would be some kind of consciousness which we have that machine's wouldn't (as far as we would be able to tell).

 

[Dre89]

Blazed, stop just assuming appealing to nature is a fallacy without proving it.

The naturalistic fallacy says you can't derive an ought from an is, when natural law actually derives an is from an ought.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Blazed, stop just assuming appealing to nature is a fallacy without proving it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies?wasRedirected=true

Appeal to nature: an argument wherein something is deemed correct or good if it is natural, and is deemed incorrect or bad if it is unnatural*

 

[Dre89]

I know what it is, but it's not correct simply because certain people say it is.

If that were the case, I could just make up the scientific fallacy, and say any appeal to science is fallcious. So whenever I'm in a debate, I can just say my opposition has committed the scientific fallacy, without having to prove it is in fact a fallacy.

 

[blazedaces]

I know what it is, but it's not correct simply because certain people say it is.

If that were the case, I could just make up the scientific fallacy, and say any appeal to science is fallcious. So whenever I'm in a debate, I can just say my opposition has committed the scientific fallacy, without having to prove it is in fact a fallacy.

Are you going to ask us to prove every well known documented statement? Sources are no longer legitimate? Ironically you don't source anything, so I'm not surprised...

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

You don't need to source it, because I know it came from David Hume.

But the point is it is a highly controversial argument, and not agreed upon by everyone.

I could just make up an atheistic fallacy, and say it's right because a lot of people agree on it. That would be silly because alot of atheists would also disagree with it.

It's like Ockham's Razor, people nowadays just seem to assume it's an invincible principle that is universally accepted, when it isn't.

 

[blazedaces]

You don't need to source it, because I know it came from David Hume.

But the point is it is a highly controversial argument, and not agreed upon by everyone.

I could just make up an atheistic fallacy, and say it's right because a lot of people agree on it. That would be silly because alot of atheists would also disagree with it.

It's like Ockham's Razor, people nowadays just seem to assume it's an invincible principle that is universally accepted, when it isn't.

Why don't you EVER source anything? Good grief...

First of all, occam's razor is simply a genuine observation. It is not "always true" or "always not true". But it is an argument one can use for why one explanation is "better" than any other.

The sad truth though Dre, is that their is no such thing as an "atheistic" fallacy. If that were the case we would discuss it.

I've noticed something though Dre, you challenge my statement of fallacy, but you never challenge my other claim. You never define natural in a reasonable way. You never respond when I poke and prod at your definition of natural. It becomes painfully obvious how it fails to be used as a reasonable means to measure morality.

You're not even making an "ought" from an "is"... you're just making up garbage and then claiming what is and isn't "natural". This is the problem with every argument appealing to nature...

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

Why don't you EVER source anything? Good grief...

What do I need to source? I debate using philosophical logic, not statistics or experiments. This isn't an essay...

Most of the time, I don't even say "X said this", I just put across an argument, usually loosely based off a philosopher's original version.

First of all, occam's razor is simply a genuine observation. It is not "always true" or "always not true". But it is an argument one can use for why one explanation is "better" than any other.

And I know what OR is, it's a principle used to conclude probable truth. The problem is people assume it's invincible, in that it should always be applied, and that it is always right, when its merit is inquestion.

The sad truth though Dre, is that their is no such thing as an "atheistic" fallacy. If that were the case we would discuss it.

But my point is, you seem to think the fact that someone thinks X is a fallcy means that it must be correct, and you can just state that without having to back it up.

I've noticed something though Dre, you challenge my statement of fallacy, but you never challenge my other claim. You never define natural in a reasonable way. You never respond when I poke and prod at your definition of natural. It becomes painfully obvious how it fails to be used as a reasonable means to measure morality.

I provided a definition of natural, you just didn't like it.

I said what is natural are the ends we move towards. We are clearly sturctured to appreciate and benefit from food, so it is natural for us to eat it. We are clearly structured to appreciate and benefit from sex, so it is natural for us to do it.

Ecosystems are natural, because the animals within them are structured to preserve them. That's why the wilderbeast anually migrate across the Serenghetti River, not only so they can breed/graze new pastures (can't remeber which one), but so that the crocs get to feast.

Now what I define as unnatural is anything we are not structured to do, such as prevent ejaculation whilst having sex.

And before someone asks, yes I consider technology natural. Not that it in itself is natural, but that it is natural for humans to develop technology, so doing so is not wrong.

You're not even making an "ought" from an "is"... you're just making up garbage and then claiming what is and isn't "natural". This is the problem with every argument appealing to nature...

-blazed

Tell me all the arguments you've read that are based on nature.

Secondly, natural law doesn't derive an ought from an is, it derives an is from an ought.

Thirdly, I'm willing to promise my mother's life that I didn't have conclusions, then just make up reasons for them after. That's a just a criticism atheists throw around at everyone who disagrees with them.

Ask me how I concluded X, and I will tell you how. Ask me why I consider A natural, and B unnatral, and I will tell you why.

 

[Deleted member]

I said what is natural are the ends we move towards. We are clearly sturctured to appreciate and benefit from food, so it is natural for us to eat it. We are clearly structured to appreciate and benefit from sex, so it is natural for us to do it.

Ecosystems are natural, because the animals within them are structured to preserve them. That's why the wilderbeast anually migrate across the Serenghetti River, not only so they can breed/graze new pastures (can't remeber which one), but so that the crocs get to feast.

Now what I define as unnatural is anything we are not structured to do, such as prevent ejaculation whilst having sex.

I'm not sure that I understand this. Are you saying that something is natural if it follows what it is structured to do? (I'm not sure that you are, but as I said I don't understand it).

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I provided a definition of natural, you just didn't like it.

I said what is natural are the ends we move towards. We are clearly sturctured to appreciate and benefit from food, so it is natural for us to eat it. We are clearly structured to appreciate and benefit from sex, so it is natural for us to do it.

Ecosystems are natural, because the animals within them are structured to preserve them. That's why the wilderbeast anually migrate across the Serenghetti River, not only so they can breed/graze new pastures (can't remeber which one), but so that the crocs get to feast.

Now what I define as unnatural is anything we are not structured to do, such as prevent ejaculation whilst having sex.

And before someone asks, yes I consider technology natural. Not that it in itself is natural, but that it is natural for humans to develop technology, so doing so is not wrong.

You know, I wouldn't even call this a definition of natural. I'd refer to it as, "intended purpose" or something. I believe that it is in fact more accurate than the word "natural".

And really, just to throw some food for thought into the ring I invoke GM crops. GM crops, are they a corruption of natural goods? Put simply, artificial selection and genetic modification has modified the crops we eat into something very different from what they used to be. They were not intended to feed the humens, but now they have been modified to achieve that end. What is your stance on that? Are they natural? Are they man made?

 

[Dre89]

Humans are structured to modify their surroundings for their purposes. That's evident in their capacity for technology and ability to traverse multiple ecosystems.

As such, GM isn't immoral because it modifying the food for a human good, it's not modifying or corrupting the human.

 

[Sucumbio]

Ha! Interesting responses, this really shows a nice slice of the DH. "This is really just semantics." "This is a pointless debate because anything with the word natural in it involves a logical fallacy." "Ought from an is." (still don't even really follow what that means)

................ well, ok. Yes! It IS semantic, and nonsense when you think about it. A little back story: I got engrossed in a heated argument during a period of Socio-Economics. The professor was not exactly a "tree hugger," but was trying to convince us that mankind has a duty to uphold a rigorous standard in terms of preserving the Earth as it was before we started to spread out and people it and fill it with technology (including but not limited to the burning of fossil fuels, nukes, -insert nasty eco-garbage here-). My counter to this was simple.

The Earth made us, so if we destroy it, it's on Mother Earth, NOT on us. And besides., even if we turn it into a dust bowl, with nothing surviving, the Earth will still be here, a desolate rock, and will -eventually- come back to life.

She hated this response, of course, because she felt that our "intelligence" demanded that we take responsibility for our actions. She further made claims that "too many people" forget to take this responsibilty, littering, poisoning the Earth. Once in the late great User Blogs I posted about the discovery of water on the Moon. One responder said words to the effect of "I think people OVER estimate humans' impact to the Earth and the environment. We're not that significant, nor are we capable of THAT much damage, in the long term. It's a big planet." This sort of thing.

My sentiments have changed but only by a little. I do think it's important to mind where you dump your toxic waste. But not for the planet's sake! For OURS. You don't want to dump engine oil down the sink because you may end up drinking it later, or it ends up in a the chicken you cook that night.

It's a fallacy to assume anything is good or bad based on its state of nature. This does tie in with the original argument between me and my professor. Her view was that we are somehow "above" nature, beyond it, that we have dominion over ourselves, and therefore must respect nature and all that is natural. My counter was that we aren't any less natural just because we have intellect. So we DON'T owe anything to nature. She cited that evolution was a sign that nature was organized. I counted that if that is true, than Nature always intended for its own destruction! OF course, right? Because we're SO capable of killing the planet, and we're here because of "her" so, obviously if there was a grand scheme in mind, it meant for us to have this super-power-grip of death over "her."

>< I'm getting mad just thinking about that day, lol. I thought she was going to eject me from the lecture hall, but we just agreed to STFU and move on, still got an A

Anyway, for your sake blazed, "natural" is traditionally anything that isn't man-made. That's really all you can do with the word. A river is natural. Unless it's a man-made river, then it's not a natural river, it's a man-made river. That's honestly the cleanest definition I can think of. Which is why fallacy is so easy. Because you have to define by what it's not. Not man-made = natural. Yeah...

Humans are not man-made (not yet, anyway, don't wanna go there today) so they are natural. A steak is man-made. It isn't born a steak. It's born a cow, and then it's slaughter, cut, cooked, and voila steak.

GM fields are man-made so they're not natural, despite most of the process being natural (growing). The rub here is that in nature, some plants will cross pollinate leading to a hybrid species. Since it happened without man's hand involved, it's "natural." *shrug* this is where the semantics get too thick for me to really care, lol.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I go back and forth on this, but if things like cars and buildings are considered natural, then we may as well throw away the word (or at least this meaning of it), since everything is therefore natural.

As for whether or not human beings are natural, I never made the claim that humans were actually natural. The word unnatural has a negative connotation which really isn't necessary. The fact that something is natural or unnatural doesn't necessarily have any positive or negative effect on its value or intelligence. I see no reason why something which is unnatural cannot be intelligent.

If humans and animals are considered unnatural, then we may as well throw away the word (or at least this meaning of it), since every living thing is therefore unnatural.

I said what is natural are the ends we move towards. We are clearly sturctured to appreciate and benefit from food, so it is natural for us to eat it. We are clearly structured to appreciate and benefit from sex, so it is natural for us to do it.

Ecosystems are natural, because the animals within them are structured to preserve them. That's why the wilderbeast anually migrate across the Serenghetti River, not only so they can breed/graze new pastures (can't remeber which one), but so that the crocs get to feast.

Now what I define as unnatural is anything we are not structured to do, such as prevent ejaculation whilst having sex.

And how do you know what things are "structured" to do?

 

[Deleted member]

If humans and animals are considered unnatural, then we may as well throw away the word (or at least this meaning of it), since every living thing is therefore unnatural.

Well not all words need to have a strong "purpose" to them. It's nice to know that a beautiful looking landscape can be natural, while a beautiful painting of a landscape can be unnatural.

And how do you know what things are "structured" to do?

I definitely agree with this. Saying that we are structured to do things makes the assumption that we have an underlying purpose (or underlying purposes).

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't think that's what he means by structure. I think he's referring to biological "purpose" insofar as... like, lungs are for breathing, eyes are for seeing, etc. Those are simple examples, a more complex example is: our taste buds, nasal passage and brain are "structured" (and when used in unison) to "appreciate" food. Though technically appreciation is an emotional response, so the brain is what's used mostly in that equation. We are "structured" to benefit from food in that we have digestive systems which transform food into energy. Why sex organs are not necessarily -only- structured for procreation is the debatable opinion. Whereas a heart is obviously structured to pump blood around the circulatory system, the sex organs are used for 2 purposes, to procreate, and for personal pleasure. This is unfortunately a crux in the reproductive system. Because the stimulation of sex organs feels good, and humans in particular like to feel good, they stimulate their sex organs even if procreating won't result. None of this leads to any moral implication, however. It is simply an explanation of the biology of humans, be it how we intemperate and judge food, how we breath, or why we enjoy sex. To make a moral judgment based on these facts is to assume that feeling good is wrong. And that is something that is fundamentally handed down through fire and brimstone theology, strictly puritanical, and why so many people today revolt at the idea.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Humans are structured to modify their surroundings for their purposes. That's evident in their capacity for technology and ability to traverse multiple ecosystems.

As such, GM isn't immoral because it modifying the food for a human good, it's not modifying or corrupting the human.

I never asked if it was moral or not. I asked if it was natural.

 

[Dre89]

Why sex organs are not necessarily -only- structured for procreation is the debatable opinion. Whereas a heart is obviously structured to pump blood around the circulatory system, the sex organs are used for 2 purposes, to procreate, and for personal pleasure. This is unfortunately a crux in the reproductive system. Because the stimulation of sex organs feels good, and humans in particular like to feel good, they stimulate their sex organs even if procreating won't result. None of this leads to any moral implication, however. It is simply an explanation of the biology of humans, be it how we intemperate and judge food, how we breath, or why we enjoy sex. To make a moral judgment based on these facts is to assume that feeling good is wrong. And that is something that is fundamentally handed down through fire and brimstone theology, strictly puritanical, and why so many people today revolt at the idea.

Again, natural law doesn't derive an ought from an is, it derives an is from an ought.

As you know, I disagree with this part, but I also understand one could make a logical argument that the structure of sex dictates that pleasure is an alternate end of sex. I personally feel it's more strongly suggested that the pleasure is merely there to enitce you into the act, hence why the pleasure concludes once the ejaculation occurs, and why the ejaculation contains the most intense pleasure.

Secondly, if sex was aletrnatively meant for pelasure, we would be able to control our ejaculations. If it was natural to have sex for pleasure and not procreation, we wouldn't need artificial agency to be able to do it.

Also, there are health risks from having prolonged sexual stimulation without the ejaculation, suggesting the ejaculation is the entire point of the act.

Finally, saying that theology is against feeling good is a drastic straw-man, and you should be better than that. What theology, and anyone with a mroal outlook sympathetic to theology disagree with is corrupting the body merely to attain a pleasure.

What theology disagrees with is the idea that attaining pleasure, has priorty over other goods.

 

[Sucumbio]

Again, natural law doesn't derive an ought from an is, it derives an is from an ought.

Could you clear this up for me? I realize I can look up the word "ought" for example, but I'd rather you put into layman's terms for me.

As you know, I disagree with this part, but I also understand one could make a logical argument that the structure of sex dictates that pleasure is an alternate end of sex. I personally feel it's more strongly suggested that the pleasure is merely there to enitce you into the act, hence why the pleasure concludes once the ejaculation occurs, and why the ejaculation contains the most intense pleasure.

I see those as the same thing, really. Be it an 'alternate end' or "simply" there to make you want to do it, the result is you do it. However where I stray from your idea is at the underlined part... I find it to be one-sided in terms of gender. Also, and from personal experience, multiple ejaculations are possible (and fantastic, and sadly rare [for me, anyway])... in other words pleasure doesn't have to conclude once it occurs, and it's the orgasm that's most intense, which can be attained multiple times in both men and women, though technically and reportedly far more frequently in women than men. This leads me to believe that the orgasm cannot be used to conclude anything about the purpose of sex, rather, it's ... icing on the cake so to speak. The whole ordeal is pleasurable, for sure, and some people DO engage in sex only to "get off" or climax, but these people are less romantic, spending hardly any time with foreplay, etc. This is where human sexuality actually gets quite complex, and why it's difficult for me to just write it off as "simple." It's anything but.

Secondly, if sex was aletrnatively meant for pelasure, we would be able to control our ejaculations. If it was natural to have sex for pleasure and not procreation, we wouldn't need artificial agency to be able to do it.

Well this point stems from the first, so I'd say you'll need to counter my rebuttal before I comment on this, because you may decide to change your approach. If not, I suppose my things about this is that it's too broad a statement. When I say "sex for pleasure" I'm referring to the entire process, not just the climax. Orgasms may not "just" be meant for pleasure, in men. That I might buy, though even that's pushing it (because some like it elsewhere. >< I don't wanna get too graphic.) Point is your argument is really regarding the orgasm and not the entire sex act.

Also, there are health risks from having prolonged sexual stimulation without the ejaculation, suggesting the ejaculation is the entire point of the act.

Actually, one can train themselves to go for quite some time without doing damage. There are quite a few BDSM website you can check out but I cannot link them, obviously. In this tradition, though, you'll find that there are men who enjoy prolonging it, be brought right to the brink only to settle back down. It's interesting to say the least.

Finally, saying that theology is against feeling good is a drastic straw-man, and you should be better than that. What theology, and anyone with a mroal outlook sympathetic to theology disagree with is corrupting the body merely to attain a pleasure.

What theology disagrees with is the idea that attaining pleasure, has priorty over other goods.

You forget the fire and brimstone part. :-) Look at things like, The Scarlet Letter, or other 17th cen. period literature... also look at any old days law book, puritan law. Heck look at some current day laws, things like "no anal sex." "no oral sex." look at even some persian laws... middle eastern laws... look at some laws in indo-china... My point is that the idea of "sex for pleasure is bad" comes from historically strong aversion to and oppression of sexual freedom. There has been arguments made regarding the architecture of some places, p3nis and b00b buildings. It's been said to be the direct result of a culture of shame. This is what I was talking about, I'm not attempting to straw man anything, just demonstrating that making moral judgments on people based on their sexual desires is fallacious, IF it's biased from these sources (which 9 times out of 10 it is). Also I don't mean to suggest that these sources are all wrong. Both a puritan citizen and a citizen of today -should- agree that sex with animals/kids/dead people is wrong.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I never asked if it was moral or not. I asked if it was natural.

You haven't answered my question. I'd really like an answer. I'm just tossing stuff in to test your definition, and you're not replying to it.

 

[Dre89]

Sucumbio I'll answer you when I'm at a computer.

Bob- Seeing as technology is a natural capacity of humanity, and in this particular case the human nature is not being corrupted, it's morally permissable.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bob- Seeing as technology is a natural capacity of humanity, and in this particular case the human nature is not being corrupted, it's morally permissable.

I asked a different question. I want to know if GM food is considered natural in your eyes. Or artificially selected food. I really want to know. I'm not arguing the morality of it. So please, answer my question.

 

[Dre89]

Well if its properties are tampered with by humans, and thus it is no longer the way it was before human intervention, then I guess I'd say it's artificial.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Well if its properties are tampered with by humans, and thus it is no longer the way it was before human intervention, then I guess I'd say it's artificial.

I was thinking about this for a while, and I've realised that the entirety of our environment is influenced by us, in one way or another. Whether it be human induced climate change, or deforestation, or our interruptions on the food change. In effect, nothing is really exactly the way it was before human intervention.

So, where do you draw the line?

 

[Dre89]

What do you mean?

As in what point it becomes too much interference?

I'm on the fence as to how much we should change.

On one hand, we're structured to appreciate the beauty of nature, something I'm not sure other animals can do.

But on the other hand, we're structured to make technology, to traverse and ruin multiple ecosystems, and we're not governed by any ecosystem. We appear structured to dominate the Earth.

Basically anything humans did would interfere and alter nature, we needed to do that to survive. So it would seem kind of arbitrary to draw a line at where it should stop.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What do you mean?

As in what point it becomes too much interference?

I'm on the fence as to how much we should change.

On one hand, we're structured to appreciate the beauty of nature, something I'm not sure other animals can do.

But on the other hand, we're structured to make technology, to traverse and ruin multiple ecosystems, and we're not governed by any ecosystem. We appear structured to dominate the Earth.

Basically anything humans did would interfere and alter nature, we needed to do that to survive. So it would seem kind of arbitrary to draw a line at where it should stop.

Okay, I'm just asking where do you draw the line between "natural" and "influenced too much by humans to be natural". See, the way the earth works, nothing is isolated, we're going to affect everything, in some way. I want to know where the line is drawn between natural and artificial.