NEWS: Why the Fuck is China Still Pulling this Shark Fin Soup Bullshit?

But her argument, I think, is that by the same token, a beaver's dam doesn't exist independently in nature (it has to be constructed) but few would call it unnatural. It's true that dams are built using elements like logs, mud, grass and rocks found in nature, but so too is plastic constructed using varied polymers of naturally ocurring elements. In both cases, the elements are manipulated, altered and reconfigured (with, obviously,extremely varying degrees of complexity) by agents using them.

Anyway, this certainly doesn't have any bearing on the original article, I don't believe that everything humans make has to be natural or that that dams and plastics are congruous, and I clearly understand that common usage dictates a certain understanding of all these words. But it's a bit unpleasant to see this larger tangent completely disregarded and dismissed as simplistic in a few sentences. The dividing line between natural and unnatural has been a philosophical contention point for eons, and IMO it's arrogant for any single person on a message board to posit a definitive answer and act as though there is no room whatsoever for debate on the topic.

(The above was not addressed to any member in particular by the way)

And what's so great about "natural"? Cannibalism, rape, territorial wars and murder are all practiced in "nature".

I think what they're saying is that, given enough time, natural activities such as cannibalism, rape, territorial wars and murder will yield a "positive" result. Except "positive" is a subjective evaluation so let's just continue this abstract solipsistic meaningless conversation because we like the sound of our own voice.

Now somebody give Jenni a cookie.

If you find this conversation meaningless, there's no need to bother partaking in it.

I don't find your points very interesting, or even funny. So please don't stay on my account. It doesn't sound like you're enjoying this debate on the definition of 'natural' either, and you're trying to make it into something quite unpleasant. Why don't you join a conversation that you feel has more merit, I think you'd enjoy yourself more and to be honest I would too.

I agree. People argue that these natural activities will eventually lead to a 'peaceful balance' of sorts, but I don't think that's true. If it was, I don't see how evolution could occur in the long term.

It seems to work for chimpanzees/tree frogs/ants/praying mantises... manti... whatever.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your point - what is it that works for chimps/frogs/etc, and why?

(sorry if that's a bit of a dense thing for me to ask, I'm a bit tired)

Cannibalism etc. Their a fairly permanent part of life for these creatures. So they do seem to have lead to a "peaceful balance".

No. Beaver dams are sticks and mud and various things found in nature that are fundamentally unaltered by their inclusion in a beaver dam.

Plastic and gasoline are found nowhere in nature in their current form, and are thus unnatural.

Ergo, crude oil is natural, gasoline and plastics are not.