On the use of "natural" vs. "artificial"

[Apollo2020]

I often see the term "artificial" applied to human activity and technology both in conversation and in formal academic literature. Granted, we have a greater facility with tools and symbolic reasoning than most creatures, but we evolved in the same fashion. For example, "artificial selection" is often used to describe the domestication and selective breeding of animals. I would argue that this is "natural" selection just as the symbiosis between algae and fungi in a lichen arose from natural selection. You might say we "chose" to selectively breed animals therefore it is artificial. I would say that perhaps the algae or fungi chose too, albeit in a much simpler, seemingly more deterministic way. The sophistication of our decision making processes does not imply that we are no longer capable of participating in the process of evolution via natural selection. Nor is our technology. If the human brain is a naturally occurring entity (as opposed to supernatural, as some might argue), and the human mind is the collection of emergent processes of the brain, then the products of our minds (technology) should also be considered natural.

 

Natural: Present in or produced by nature.

Nature: The material world and its phenomena.

 

So,

Natural: Present in or produced by [the material world and its phenomena].

 

 

I consider myself a phenomena of the material world and I think this "artificial" boundary that we establish between ourselves and our environment is detrimental to our understanding, and often prevents us from seeing how we fit into the rest of nature.

 

I'd love to hear what others think.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Apollo2020

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that it is useful even though it is an artificial distinction. Perhaps think of "artificial" as "requiring human-level intelligence to produce".

[Sisyphus]

Perhaps think of "artificial" as "requiring human-level intelligence to produce".

 

I agree that that is what "artificial" means, implicitly. It's an artificial distinction, to be sure, but it's a natural artificial distinction to make for beings like us, not to mention useful. Just don't forget its artificiality, or else you naturally end up with artifacts like the naturalistic fallacy.

[lemur]

While it is true that creativity, conscious decision-making, and willful action are part of human nature; calling the results of concerted human action, "artificial" makes since since you can assume that the same thing wouldn't happen if the components were left to themselves. If Chihuahuas or Poodles wouldn't emerge naturally from dogs selecting each other for mating, then it makes sense to call these artificial breeds, no?