Bee lives matter

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What's "the natural balance," how ought we preserve it and why?

If you think otherwise than in your opinion global warming is no big deal too?

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you think otherwise than in your opinion global warming is no big deal too?

He asked you " What's "the natural balance" " thus indicating that, like me, he doesn't know exactly what you mean by "the natural balance" and that implies he, as would I, wouldn't know global warming is supposed to damage "the natural balance" as whatever you mean by that. Thus he asking why we should preserve this "natural balance" doesn't in the slightest imply he thinks global warming is "no big deal". Don't you see?

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you think otherwise than in your opinion global warming is no big deal too?

I'm asking a question. If it's important to preserve "the natural balance," we first need to establish what that actually is.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm asking a question. If it's important to preserve "the natural balance," we first need to establish what that actually is.

Natural Balance would mean artificial man made activities would not interfere with nature's normal processes as we do with global warming. If you think it is no big deal so be it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Natural Balance would mean artificial man made activities would not interfere with nature's normal processes as we do with global warming. If you think it is no big deal so be it.

By that definition the only way to not upset the balance is to commit mass suicide. Still, it's not very quantitative; how much exactly does using GMO's upset the natural balance? And why don't artificial goose-made activities upset the natural balance?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Natural Balance would mean artificial man made activities would not interfere with nature's normal processes as we do with global warming. If you think it is no big deal so be it.

I am guessing you believe that all our crops were handed to us in the Garden of Eden and thus they are part of the 'natural balance'. I hate to break it to you, but almost every crop is man made and has already been modified by selective breeding far more than GMOs have been modified. Just about every farming industry in every country engages in selective breeding programs of various kinds. Should they cease and desist this activity for fear of upsetting the natural balance?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
By that definition the only way to not upset the balance is to commit mass suicide. Still, it's not very quantitative; how much exactly does using GMO's upset the natural balance? And why don't artificial goose-made activities upset the natural balance?

just curious; when you say "goose-made", is that a metaphor or to be taken literally? If the former, what does it mean?

Originally posted by humy
just curious; when you say "goose-made", is that a metaphor or to be taken literally? If the former, what does it mean?

It is just an example aiming to highlight the apparent inconsistency between making a distinction between the influence of man and the influence of other animals. Neither is necessarily "better" or "worse" except insofar as one highlights one particular way in which a particular animal might influence a particular aspect of nature. Clearly geese do not affect biodiversity and the climate in the same way people do, yet the distinction between "artificial" and "natural" is not obvious. For example, is it artificial if someone kills a deer with a spear, or is that still natural?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It is just an example aiming to highlight the apparent inconsistency between making a distinction between the influence of man and the influence of other animals. Neither is necessarily "better" or "worse" except insofar as one highlights one particular way in which a particular animal might influence a particular aspect of nature. Clearly geese do not ...[text shortened]... s. For example, is it artificial if someone kills a deer with a spear, or is that still natural?

I am in agreement. You could say we are 'natural' animals and thus everything we do, just like everything other 'natural' animal does, is 'natural'. Therefore, us polluting the air with 'natural' smoke from fire because fire 'naturally' makes smoke, must be 'natural'; I think that exposes the ambiguity of the meaning of the word 'natural' to the point of showing it to be almost completely meaningless.

Originally posted by humy
I think that exposes the ambiguity of the meaning of the word 'natural' to the point of showing it to be almost completely meaningless.

I disagree. I think the term is quite meaningful. It simply doesn't have a very well defined boundary. That doesn't leave it without meaning. The danger that Kelly is in is that it is hard to make categoric statements about terms with weakly defined boundaries. This doesn't mean it is impossible to do so.
One could for example say something about 'tall trees'. It is difficult to define exactly what constitutes a 'tall tree', but one cannot deny that the term has meaning.