Originally posted by Palynkaof course it is - it's laughable when people look at rolling fields of crops and say that that's 'nature'. A bit closer to nature than concrete maybe, but still an artificial culturing of specific species that we find beneficial, plus the secondary growth of other species that happen to be able to co-exist in this environment.
Well, is it?
If no, can you define artificial in a way that excludes agriculture and is still internally consistent with all scenarios?
So, now that's established, what's your point?
1 edit
Originally posted by FettzillaYou think wheat would ever have evolved the way it has without human intervention? Wheat is outcompeted pretty routinely in the real world, which is why it doesn't exist outside of wheat fields. What about brocolli, cabbage, cauliflower, brussel sprouts, kolrali? All the same species you know? How "natural" do you think that is?
No.
Fair enough, agriculture is something that humans create. but most of it would grow and be anyway which in my mind means that it would not be artificial
Originally posted by scottishinnzAre all symbiotic evolutionary adaptations unnatural? If one species influences the evolutionary development of another species, or if two species evolve in relationship to one another, would that be unnatural? Evolution doesn't just 'happen' in a vacuum. There are causal relations all along the way. If mankind takes a more active role in the evolutionary development of wheat, or cabbage, is that a difference of degree or of kind?
You think wheat would ever have evolved the way it has without human intervention? Wheat is outcompeted pretty routinely in the real world, which is why it doesn't exist outside of wheat fields. What about brocolli, cabbage, cauliflower, brussel sprouts, kolrali? All the same species you know? How "natural" do you think that is?
Originally posted by rwingettOf course. I agree, however, if we're taking the "humans = non-natural" stance then agriculture is not natural. The situation of a million wheat plants huddling together in a hectare would not happen without human intervention. Of course, r, you know as well as I that this comes down to definitions.
Are all symbiotic evolutionary adaptations unnatural? If one species influences the evolutionary development of another species, or if two species evolve in relationship to one another, would that be unnatural? Evolution doesn't just 'happen' in a vacuum. There are causal relations all along the way. If mankind takes a more active role in the evolutionary development of wheat, or cabbage, is that a difference of degree or of kind?
Originally posted by belgianfreakI agree.
of course it is - it's laughable when people look at rolling fields of crops and say that that's 'nature'. A bit closer to nature than concrete maybe, but still an artificial culturing of specific species that we find beneficial, plus the secondary growth of other species that happen to be able to co-exist in this environment.
So, now that's established, what's your point?
My point is that many people tend to think of 'bio' food or wine as 'natural' and that is inconsistent with a coherent definition of artificial, in my opinion.
