Most scientists won’t say that there are no straight lines in nature, it’s so obviously and provably wrong.
I think it’s more of a thing philosophically said when talking about how modern life is so different and unnatural compared to the lives of ancient people or animals.
Tbh, I’ve only ever heard it when talking about camouflage. And tbf in that context it is somewhat true, you’re harder to see if you break up those straight lines.
Buddy, what is natural about me, a person who has never met you, talking to you, a person I have never met. How the hell doss that make any sense. Fuckin’ superpowers m8. All up in this gadget.
I’d say this device I hold in my hands is the natural result of a social species who gained enough intelligence to mostly master their environment enough to spread globally, but still has the social need to stay connected to the tribe wherever they are.
Kind of, humans were hunter gatherers for so long that we evolved to be good at it, so I guess that’s what would be natural for us.
Agriculture and our current life hasn’t been around long enough for us to properly adapt to it.
I have no idea if those societies were patriarchal or matriarchal, I would imagine both happened or maybe even some sort of equality, if you want to know more about this go ask an expert in the field.
But in the end I don’t care what you do, I just continued your argument.
Most scientists won’t say that there are no straight lines in nature, it’s so obviously and provably wrong. I think it’s more of a thing philosophically said when talking about how modern life is so different and unnatural compared to the lives of ancient people or animals.
I wonder if there’s any animals who see crystals in nature and think “wow that’s a really cool rock”.
Birds definitely think this. My local Magpies have definitely attempted bribery with cool rocks and shiny discarded human objects
Without a doubt. It would be weirder if there weren’t.
Tbh, I’ve only ever heard it when talking about camouflage. And tbf in that context it is somewhat true, you’re harder to see if you break up those straight lines.
what is ‘natural’ life, being a sustenance farmer, and dying of starvation if you have a bad harvest?
Agriculture is already somewhat unnatural, so I guess a “natural” life would be hunter gatherers.
This is why I prefer the word synthetic and define around that.
Are you trying to say that we don’t follow the laws of nature? That our activities are supernatural?
Somewhat yes, nature usually tries to adapt to the environment, we are adapting the environment to us.
I haven’t seen any other animal building roads and factories and cities.
Buddy, what is natural about me, a person who has never met you, talking to you, a person I have never met. How the hell doss that make any sense. Fuckin’ superpowers m8. All up in this gadget.
I’d say this device I hold in my hands is the natural result of a social species who gained enough intelligence to mostly master their environment enough to spread globally, but still has the social need to stay connected to the tribe wherever they are.
William Blake would’ve agreed, although I forget the relevant passages.
Me: hello, nice to meet you!
You: What the fuck!?
Accurate
oh I see, so if you aren’t a roving band of stone age people, then it’s unnatural?
and are these societies also matriarchal or something too, because you know the patriarchy is unnatural as well?
Kind of, humans were hunter gatherers for so long that we evolved to be good at it, so I guess that’s what would be natural for us.
Agriculture and our current life hasn’t been around long enough for us to properly adapt to it.
I have no idea if those societies were patriarchal or matriarchal, I would imagine both happened or maybe even some sort of equality, if you want to know more about this go ask an expert in the field.
But in the end I don’t care what you do, I just continued your argument.
*subsistence