When does natural become man made? What's the dividing line?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tribdog
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Line Natural
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of what constitutes "natural" versus "man-made" in ecological contexts, particularly in relation to the reintroduction of bison to the Great Plains. Participants explore historical practices, ecological impacts, and philosophical questions regarding human intervention in nature.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question who determines the "natural order" and suggest that human actions, such as those of Indigenous peoples, have historically altered ecosystems.
  • One participant proposes that the extinction of mankind might be a solution to restoring natural balance.
  • There is a discussion about the historical practices of the Blackfoot tribe in hunting bison and the ecological implications of those practices.
  • Some participants express confusion about the characterization of humans as "unnatural," suggesting that humans are part of nature.
  • One participant compares ecological restoration to architectural design, arguing that changes can be made to improve or revert to previous states, but questions the feasibility of achieving a truly "natural" state.
  • Another participant emphasizes that ecological restoration aims for a healthy and robust ecosystem rather than simply reverting to a previous state.
  • Concerns are raised about the interdependence of ecosystems and the potential consequences of human interventions, citing examples like the impact of removing wolves on deer populations.
  • Some participants note that the Great Plains may have been artificially shaped by historical practices, complicating the notion of what is "natural."
  • A humorous remark suggests that decisions about natural order might be made by English professors at conferences, highlighting the subjective nature of the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the definitions of natural and man-made, with no clear consensus on the dividing line. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives on ecological restoration and human impact.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of ecological systems and the potential for unintended consequences of human actions, but specific assumptions and definitions are not fully explored or agreed upon.

tribdog
Messages
779
Reaction score
17
I'm watching a show about reintroducing bison to the great plains, because man killed most of them off. In the same breath they talk about how indians would burn the plains to attact bison to the new growth and that's why there were so many of them. Who decides which is the natural order? I'm fairly sure that by increasing the number of bison, the indians caused the decrease of some other creature. If we are going to get the world back to how it was before man crashed the party and ruined everything what do we aim for? primordial soup?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
tribdog said:
I'm watching a show about reintroducing bison to the great plains, because man killed most of them off. In the same breath they talk about how indians would burn the plains to attact bison to the new growth and that's why there were so many of them. Who decides which is the natural order? I'm fairly sure that by increasing the number of bison, the indians caused the decrease of some other creature. If we are going to get the world back to how it was before man crashed the party and ruined everything what do we aim for? primordial soup?


I all most sure there is no ansewer to that.
 
The best plan would probably be the extinction of mankind...
 
glondor said:
The Blackfoot tribe killed buffalo by the millions here.

That's only a few hours from here, it's a pretty cool place to see.

They killed millions of buffalo there, they did not kill them by the millions.
 
Sorry , crappy grammar.
 
What makes humans somehow "unnatural"? That's the part that always boggles me, as if we're something other than "natural." :rolleyes:
 
Moonbear said:
What makes humans somehow "unnatural"?
PETA members?
 
Salad is not food! Salad is what food eats.
 
  • #10
NeoDevin said:
Salad is not food! Salad is what food eats.

:smile: :biggrin:
 
  • #11
NeoDevin said:
Salad is not food! Salad is what food eats.
:smile: I've never heard that one.
 
  • #12
tribdog said:
I'm watching a show about reintroducing bison to the great plains, because man killed most of them off. In the same breath they talk about how indians would burn the plains to attact bison to the new growth and that's why there were so many of them. Who decides which is the natural order? I'm fairly sure that by increasing the number of bison, the indians caused the decrease of some other creature. If we are going to get the world back to how it was before man crashed the party and ruined everything what do we aim for? primordial soup?

Serious here:

I think of it sort of like good architecture. There's a scientific part that follows physical laws, the structure, the materials, etc, and then there is the unquantifiable aesthetic part. Reintroduction of animals to areas is kinda like deciding that the living room worked better in the earlier design when it was east of the kitchen, not on the second floor. There is a sense that we liked it the was it had been, before the plans were changed.

Is anyone following me?

So if you make a change in the blueprint, and then don't like what happened, why can you not make another change? Either way, it's not going to be "natural." And I agree, what's not natural about humans? And we have blueprints!

"Hey, I don't like the island cook station in the kitchen, I wanted the peninsula design. No, wait make it an archipelago!"

Yeah, that would be neat.

Yes, I am talking about the bison.
 
  • #13
Chi Meson said:
Reintroduction of animals to areas is kinda like deciding that the living room worked better in the earlier design when it was east of the kitchen, not on the second floor.

I think a more accurate analogy would be that we liked the kitchen before we drove a bulldozer through it.
 
  • #14
NeoDevin said:
I think a more accurate analogy would be that we liked the kitchen before we drove a bulldozer through it.

Or liked the lot before we built the house. ;-)
 
  • #15
I wouldn't think that the purpose is strictly to put things back the way they were before. My impression is that ecological scientist have theories about what makes an ecology "healthy" and robust - able to deal with disruptions and return to a point of stability - and that's what they're often aiming for in restoration projects, rather than simply a desire to turn back the clock.
 
  • #16
TheStatutoryApe said:
Or liked the lot before we built the house. ;-)

Or liked the house before we knocked it down...
 
  • #17
From what I understand, the big picture is sustainability. Some people just hate to see change, and there are plenty of puritans out there, but other people [like scientists] are worried about throwing things out of balance to the point where our ecosystems collapse. For example, we wiped out the wolves, so deer populations exploded and wreaked havoc. We DDT'd the mosquitos in some third world nations to near extinction, so the mosquito predators took a dive, and the mosquitos populations exploded making the problem worse than when we started.

We are like children with crayons trying to repair a Michelangelo. Frankly, we don't what is important and what isn't, but we are told that ecosystems are or may be highly interdependent. So, for example, the loss of trees in old growth forests might, through a long sequence of events, eventually lead to the loss of phytoplankton in the oceans, which is the base of the food chain for the planet.

As for Bison, I don't know of any claimed critical role that they play. Perhaps they are critical as a food source for wolves or scavengers that in turn play other important roles in the ecosystem.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
I should point out that there is some evidence that the great mid-continental prairies are themselves artificial: produced by burning, to increase the number of bison the land would support. Had this not happened, a large fraction of the prairie would likely be oak savannah (and a good fraction of the savannah would be forested).
 
  • #19
"Who decides which is the natural order?"

English professors at an MLA conference.
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
779
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
12K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
9K
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K