Democracy in action

[Winstonm]

so a bird's nest or a beaver dam or a bee hive is not part of nature? They are all part of the thinking process. If you create something by thinking, it is not part of nature or an act of nature, it is not natural?? I have no idea why creating by thinking of stuff makes it not fully part of nature.

 

of course cars, etc are a part of nature, as much as when a star goes supernova is part of nature.

 

Of course manmade climate change is part of nature, it is fully an act of nature and by nature.

 

I understand many believe man made stuff is part magic or supernatural or the work of the devil but that is not science.

-------------------------

 

"96% of the universe's contents pass ghostlike and unnoticed through the minuscule remaining fraction" that does not mean it is not part of nature.

 

"As for the nature of consciousness, that is one question which science has not yet fully worked out" that does not mean it is not part of nature.

-----------------------

"Natural foods” and “all natural foods” are widely used terms in food labeling and marketing with a variety of definitions, most of which are vague. The term is often assumed to imply foods that are minimally processed and all of whose ingredients are natural products (in the chemist's sense of that term), but the lack of standards in most jurisdictions means that the term assures nothing. In some countries, the term “natural” is defined and enforced. In others, such as the United States, it has no meaning"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_foods

 

Rather than say man-made versus natural, a (much) better way to categorize change is to say it is either random or nonrandom. Non-random genetic mutations occur independently of man; on the other hand, only man can create non-random mutations.

 

Whether or not non-random mutations are part of nature is immaterial - all that matters is the method of change.

[mike777]

fair enough

 

 

1) why does the method of change matter?

2) I would still think mankind could make random mutations, they need not be only non random

3) I am not sure about your point that only man can create non random mutations, not sure about that point. I would think mutations could come out of order rather than chaos...I would have thought that gene modification by non mankind means need not always be random.

[Winstonm]

fair enough

 

 

1) why does the method of change matter?

2) I would still think mankind could make random mutations, they need not be only non random

3) I am not sure about your point that only man can create non random mutations, not sure about that point. I would think mutations could come out of order rather than chaos...I would have thought that gene modification by non mankind means need not always be random.

 

Non-randomness is an act of will. Man alone in the natural world is capable of creating willful genetic changes.

[mike777]

I am not sure nonrandomness of genetic changes must take an act of human will, but perhaps you are correct

[barmar]

1) why does the method of change matter?

I explained earlier. The kinds of genetic changes that man can make intentionally are quantitatively and qualitatively different from the kinds that can occur naturally.

 

As an analogy, nature can make radioactive uranium, but it can't make an atomic bomb out of it.

[el mister]

If not the government, then who?

 

We could have an independent group like Consumer Reports or Underwriters Laboratories, but without government backing they wouldn't have any teeth.

 

FDA's testing requirements may be onerous, which is why drugs that are available in other countries are not available here. But that doesn't mean that regulation in general is wrong, it just means their requirements may be too strict. Is that even enshrined in law, or just FDA tradition? It's probably an overreaction to past problems like Thalidomide, DES and Vioxx.

Drug approval requires the substance to be safe and efficacious in man, and the FDA has metastasised into a bloated, self-sustaining monster in over-seeing this process. Unregulated growth of a regulatory body. Phase 1 of that process, is the drug safe?, has to be done by a government organisation - obviously. Phase 2 and phase 3, though (does the drug work?), could see some serious scaling back. Cutting them completely is a free-market fantasy, but certainly some sort of relief from the weight of the FDA in efficacy studies could help drug discovery.

[mikeh]

 

 

This bill would ..if applied as is to animals and not plant foods.. say that animals raised in highly artificially confined and stressful environments with an equally restricted and artificial diet could be advertised as naturally raised. It's an example of the peevish Alice in Wonderland comment: ""When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." although what industry is saying is not what anyone not a "spin" doctor would recognize as having that meaning.

 

 

How ironic. You don't seem to recognize that you are a humpty dumpty yourself. You distort the meaning of words at least as much as do those against whom you rant. I'd pay a lot more attention to the points you seem to be trying to make if you didn't make ludicrous overstatements, portraying all who don't agree with you as evil or manipulative, while you see yourself as a shining beacon of the truth. You come across as a zealot and zealots rarely garner converts.

[mikeh]

If any of you have ever had pork or chicken or beef raised in accordance to the animal's natural style of living, you would know there is an enormous difference in the final product. Animals raised in cages with barely enough room to stand up or lie down, fed artificially concentrated feed full of additives (antibiotics etc.) is tough, dry and flavourless unless drenched in all sorts of sauces and herbs. Properly raised and humanely slaughtered pork is full of juice and flavour, pork chops can almost be cut with a fork they are so tender without any special treatment. Even the ubiquitous Yorkshire, bred to have as little fat as possible, is infinitely better. If you happen to luck into pork from a Red Wattle or Berkshire raised naturally you are in for ambrosia.

 

 

Do you have any idea of what it would cost to attempt to have 'natural lifestyle' animals as our source of dietary meat?

 

Say what you like about the evils of the free market (I am far from a libertarian, btw), but one thing is clear: if anyone could come up with a way to produce the ambrosia of which you speak at a price competitive with 'industrial farming', it would have been done.

 

Unless and until we, as a species, are prepared to significantly reduce our population, only the middle-class and above are likely to be able to pay for the costs of 'naturally raised' livestock.

 

Which, btw, do not live remotely 'naturally'. Nor are they products of unmediated evolution. The Red Wattle to which you refer was the product of an intensive breeding program.

[mike777]

I explained earlier. The kinds of genetic changes that man can make intentionally are quantitatively and qualitatively different from the kinds that can occur naturally.

 

As an analogy, nature can make radioactive uranium, but it can't make an atomic bomb out of it.

 

again this is not true....indeed it did make a bomb as you say naturally. there was an explosion that was not manmade on earth. Saw this on PBS I think a few months ago.

 

Not to mention there are nuclear explosions all the time in the stars.

 

Again I think all of this is just a manifestation of the Dr. Frankenstein mythology. It is an excuse to justify a cost via crony capitalism.

 

Man is part of the supernatural world not just natural world and is going against God and nature by modifying genes in the lab. What man is doing is dangerous compared to MOther nature. Man is doing the devils work.

 

The opposing viewpoint is Man is fully part of nature and whatever man creates by will or not is fully a part of the natural world, as much as a bird's nest or beaver dam. Nature destroys and creates, it kills and it creates life.

 

 

Science does not fully understand will or consciousness but that does not mean it is not fully part of the natural world or "different from what occurs naturally"

[blackshoe]

I explained earlier. The kinds of genetic changes that man can make intentionally are quantitatively and qualitatively different from the kinds that can occur naturally.

 

As an analogy, nature can make radioactive uranium, but it can't make an atomic bomb out of it.

Perhaps not, but it can make a nuclear reactor.

[Winstonm]

again this is not true....indeed it did make a bomb as you say naturally. there was an explosion that was not manmade on earth. Saw this on PBS I think a few months ago.

 

Not to mention there are nuclear explosions all the time in the stars.

 

Again I think all of this is just a manifestation of the Dr. Frankenstein mythology. It is an excuse to justify a cost via crony capitalism.

 

Man is part of the supernatural world not just natural world and is going against God and nature by modifying genes in the lab. What man is doing is dangerous compared to MOther nature. Man is doing the devils work.

 

The opposing viewpoint is Man is fully part of nature and whatever man creates by will or not is fully a part of the natural world, as much as a bird's nest or beaver dam. Nature destroys and creates, it kills and it creates life.

 

 

Science does not fully understand will or consciousness but that does not mean it is not fully part of the natural world or "different from what occurs naturally"

 

Being "part of the natural world" is not synonymous with "desired state". Mountain lions are part of the natural world but we do not allow them to run indiscriminately through our neighborhoods. We also do not have to build hydrogen bombs. To compare a supernova to the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima as two natural events warps the concept; one is a random event brought about by the laws of physics while the other was brought about by non-random decision-making of men.

 

Man also built the Honda I drive. Is the automobile also part of nature?

[mike777]

Being "part of the natural world" is not synonymous with "desired state". Mountain lions are part of the natural world but we do not allow them to run indiscriminately through our neighborhoods. We also do not have to build hydrogen bombs. To compare a supernova to the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima as two natural events warps the concept; one is a random event brought about by the laws of physics while the other was brought about by non-random decision-making of men.

 

Man also built the Honda I drive. Is the automobile also part of nature?

 

yes fully part of nature.

 

again everything man creates is fully part of nature, everything. What universe or "state" do you think the car is part of?

 

Is a bird's nest part of nature?

 

Again if you believe man is part of the supernatural world, so a car is also, fair enough. If you believe manmade gmo is part of the supernatural world so it should be labeled such, fair enough.

[billw55]

With regard to nuclear weapons, I sometimes think: would the world really be better off with no nukes? I suspect that we would have had world war 3 before now, if not for that deterrent.

 

Let's say the entire manhattan project was scrapped after the Japanese surrender. Existing weapons were destroyed, and no more built. No secrets stolen, no weapons developed independently by Russia, or anyone. In the 70 years since, we would have exactly the same number of nuclear bombs used in war as in actual history: zero. But what might have happened, that did not happen because of the nuclear deterrent? I wonder.

 

This also leads me to a line of thinking that Iran getting the bomb might not be bad. Compare India and Pakistan - there is no love lost there, and no shortage of religious extremism either. And yet, they do not engage in open war. Because they both have nukes? I wonder. Ah yes, Israel has nukes too. No, I don't think Iran would attack. Strange as it may sound, it might actually increase security in the region.

 

Reading it over, it sounds insane but still ... I wonder.

[mike777]

With regard to nuclear weapons, I sometimes think: would the world really be better off with no nukes? I suspect that we would have had world war 3 before now, if not for that deterrent.

 

Let's say the entire manhattan project was scrapped after the Japanese surrender. Existing weapons were destroyed, and no more built. No secrets stolen, no weapons developed independently by Russia, or anyone. In the 70 years since, we would have exactly the same number of nuclear bombs used in war as in actual history: zero. But what might have happened, that did not happen because of the nuclear deterrent? I wonder.

 

This also leads me to a line of thinking that Iran getting the bomb might not be bad. Compare India and Pakistan - there is no love lost there, and no shortage of religious extremism either. And yet, they do not engage in open war. Because they both have nukes? I wonder. Ah yes, Israel has nukes too. No, I don't think Iran would attack. Strange as it may sound, it might actually increase security in the region.

 

Reading it over, it sounds insane but still ... I wonder.

 

If no nukes then my guess is weapon design would still continue. More lasers, gas, killer robots, software hacking, etc. Those billions need to be spent on weapons one way or another...

 

given the direction of quantum science..not sure how you ever stop weapons not coming out of the science.

[Winstonm]

yes fully part of nature.

 

again everything man creates is fully part of nature, everything. What universe or "state" do you think the car is part of?

 

Is a bird's nest part of nature?

 

Again if you believe man is part of the supernatural world, so a car is also, fair enough. If you believe manmade gmo is part of the supernatural world so it should be labeled such, fair enough.

 

Natural is your position. My position is that "nature or natural" is immaterial, that the critical distinction is planned versus unplanned, what I have previously tagged random versus non-random.

 

Whether something is or is not part of "nature" as you interpret that word is irrelevant. The critical question is whether or not planned, non-random actions have benefits that outweigh the risks.

For example, mankind could decide to let the gasoline engine go extinct to combat the risks of further co2 rise.

 

However, if the analysis is not based on risk/reward but on profit/non-profit, then it becomes less arguable that this is still natural because the deciders are part of nature. Nature has shown to favor species positive change; when self-interest supersedes species interest, calling the outcome natural is, to me, a curious use of the word.

[mike777]

Natural is your position. My position is that the unique and important distinction is planned verses unplanned, or what I have so far explained as random or non-random.

 

Whether something is or is not part of "nature" as you interpret that word is immaterial. The critical question is whether or not planned, non-random actions have benefits that outweigh the risks.

 

agree but I would only add random actions as well. Why in the world just limit labels to just nonrandom....thus the discussion. But agree with your measurement

 

Also still not sure that nonrandom events cannot come out of a random non manmade willful beginning.

 

I mean where did human consciousness come from? Where did mans free will come from?

[Winstonm]

agree but I would only add random actions as well. Why in the world just limit labels to just nonrandom....thus the discussion. But agree with your measurement

 

Also still not sure that nonrandom events cannot come out of a random non manmade willful beginning.

 

I mean where did human consciousness come from? Where did mans free will come from?

 

I would think the increased ability in brain function would account for the possibility for choice.

[mikeh]

 

 

I mean where did human consciousness come from? Where did mans free will come from?

It seems plausible that consciousness is an emergent property, altho calling it that lacks true explanatory power in the sense that I suspect you asked the question.

 

The fact that we, as a species, don't seem to know the answer, doesn't mean that it is supernatural. In bygone eras we didn't know what those bright lights in the night sky were, or why the plague spread, and so on.

 

As for free will: who says we have it?

 

There is good evidence that the conscious 'I' is not in charge of much of anything: that the 'I' that we tend to think of as our conscious self, is merely a passenger, and a passenger with an extremely good capacity for rationalizing how our bodies act.

 

I didn't mean to thread-jack this thread into the realm of the metaphysical :P

[blackshoe]

With regard to nuclear weapons, I sometimes think: would the world really be better off with no nukes? I suspect that we would have had world war 3 before now, if not for that deterrent.

 

Let's say the entire manhattan project was scrapped after the Japanese surrender. Existing weapons were destroyed, and no more built. No secrets stolen, no weapons developed independently by Russia, or anyone. In the 70 years since, we would have exactly the same number of nuclear bombs used in war as in actual history: zero. But what might have happened, that did not happen because of the nuclear deterrent? I wonder.

 

This also leads me to a line of thinking that Iran getting the bomb might not be bad. Compare India and Pakistan - there is no love lost there, and no shortage of religious extremism either. And yet, they do not engage in open war. Because they both have nukes? I wonder. Ah yes, Israel has nukes too. No, I don't think Iran would attack. Strange as it may sound, it might actually increase security in the region.

 

Reading it over, it sounds insane but still ... I wonder.

It might increase security, but it seems a great risk to take.

 

I do not think there's a chance in Hell that the US would have scrapped the Manhattan Project before completion. If nothing else, we knew the Germans were working on nuclear weapons. If the project were to have been scrapped after the Japanese surrender, then two bombs would have been dropped (they didn't surrender until after Nagasaki). If the project had been scrapped before the bombs were built, we would have had to invade Japan. Projections at the time suggested possibly some two to four million allied casualties, and up to about 10 million Japanese casualties, including civilians.

[kenberg]

It's a relaxed evening so I am up for a little metaphysics! Ah ha. This was written as a lighthearted response to mikeh, but meanwhile the response directly above came in. I am not suggesting metaphysics as a solution to nuclear weapons. But perhaps nuclear weapons would be a solution to metaphysics.

 

The husband half of a couple that we know is an extremist on the subject of choice. He also insists on his views. He corrects his wife's choice of words if she ever speaks of a choice that she has made, which might be a metaphysical paradox. If I were to do such a thing with Becky, it would not be a paradox, it would be a mistake.

 

Anyway, I was thinking of going to the Y for some exercise today but I got lazy and decided not to. I suppose a really wise person might have foreseen this happening, could explain the inevitability of it, and thus contend that it was not a choice. I think it was a choice. I had the time, I didn't go.

 

Mostly I think abandoning the concept of choice obliterates a useful distinction. I did not run a five minute mile today, I believe (well, I am sure) that I could not have done so had I chosen to try. I could have gone to the Y, lifted some weights, worked out on the ArcTrainer. I chose not to. Regardless of the words used, not exercising at the Y and not running a five minute mile are two very different things. In one case, I could have done it but didn't, in the other case I am sure it was beyond my ability. Using choice for something that I could have done but did not do seems useful. If we are not allowed to refer to either case as a choice, then we need some other word because we still need the distinction.

 

I'm tired. This sort of mental work just wears me out.

[Winstonm]

I explain the phenomenon of consciousness as an element of expanded cognitive capacity. Lower-ranking creatures do not have the excess capacity to do more than provide basic life functions - higher orders seem to have enough capacity for self-awareness. To me, it makes sense that the coding "error" that propelled mankind upward was one that resulted in greater cognitive capacity.

[mike777]

I explain the phenomenon of consciousness as an element of expanded cognitive capacity. Lower-ranking creatures do not have the excess capacity to do more than provide basic life functions - higher orders seem to have enough capacity for self-awareness. To me, it makes sense that the coding "error" that propelled mankind upward was one that resulted in greater cognitive capacity.

 

so nonrandom came out of random? that was my point, it came without direction...or perhaps with some unknown alien direction...who knows....:)

 

all the more reason to label all gmo modification or none, not a tiny select few for no reason other than politics

[blackshoe]

Perhaps the distinction is between organisms whose genetic make-up is tinkered with at the molecular level, and organisms whose genetic make-up is tinkered with by other means — like say breeding. The latter is okay, the former is evil use of evil technology.

[mike777]

Perhaps the distinction is between organisms whose genetic make-up is tinkered with at the molecular level, and organisms whose genetic make-up is tinkered with by other means — like say breeding. The latter is okay, the former is evil use of evil technology.

 

ok why?

 

again dr Frankenstein or devil?

 

as for breeding....breeding humans....gene modification...just give it time....time start small, very small...think art/ wombs.. separate women from birth

 

go down to the corner womb store and pick up your kid

[barmar]

yes fully part of nature.

 

again everything man creates is fully part of nature, everything. What universe or "state" do you think the car is part of?

 

Is a bird's nest part of nature?

 

Again if you believe man is part of the supernatural world, so a car is also, fair enough. If you believe manmade gmo is part of the supernatural world so it should be labeled such, fair enough.

Who cares?

 

When people talk of "natural foods" and "genetically modified organisms", they are not using these words just in their literal sense. These have more specific meanings in context, and the literal meanings are irrelevant.

 

So it really makes absolutely no difference what is "part of nature". "Natural foods" are not foods that are in nature, it means foods that were grown without certain, specific artificial technologies. And GMO means organisms that were not produced using genetic engineering.

 

Making up your own meanings for common terms is not conducive to constructive discussion, it just obfuscates.