Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rocksvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!harpo!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sam
From: sam@rocksvax.UUCP (Sam Houston)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Natural???
Message-ID: <1106@rocksvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 7-Dec-83 12:20:20 EST
Article-I.D.: rocksvax.1106
Posted: Wed Dec  7 12:20:20 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Dec-83 07:37:46 EST
Organization: Xerox, Rochester, N.Y.
Lines: 30


Carl Amport, you and I must just be opposites, 'cuz I can
only agree with about 5% of your flames....but your latest
anthropocentric characterization of "natural" is too much.
You seem to represent the view that everything outside of
our species represents behavior according to some pre-ordained
set of "natural" laws; whereas behavior of homo-sapiens 
exists at some higher, elevated level--viz. "unnatural".

No.  We are natural; our creations (including the subdivisiions,
highways, fences, nuclear arms,---all our cultural products)
are also natural.  We are only a "higher animal" in the
very strict ecological meaning of being the present top
carnivore in the short term mix.  Cruelty and humanity are
only (relative and changing) concepts we, as a species,
have adopted for some natural reason I do not profess to
understand. 

To be short, my major point of objection to your exclusive
definition of natural is that it promotes such a man-centered
point of view and behavior that we (as a species) may not survive
the results for long.  In my relatively existentialist world, the 
continued survival of my species is a greatly desired thing--
sort of an absolute; just as I guess the unnaturalness of man
is to you.

		in joyous contradiction,

			sam