Hacker News Reader

Comment by onikolas7 | Hacker News Reader

The equilibrium with lower biodiversity is more fragile and less beneficial for us[0]. Having said that, we are _not_ nature. We make conscious decisions and so we should hold ourselves in a higher standard (both from a practical and moral perspective).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Human_health

Re-reading my comment I realize it sounds like low-key creationism BS which was not my intention.

View on HN

If tomorrow we find proof that dolphins make conscious decisions, will they cease to be nature?

I suspect whether to draw the line to make 'nature' include or exclude humans is very similar to whether to include or exclude the observer in quantum mechanics.

Both perspectives are entirely reasonable, but they are useful in different circumstances.

Tomorrow? Of course animals make conscious decisions. This orangutan had, prior to implemention, made a conscious decision to build a hammock by tying a sheet to the cage bars.

https://roaring.earth/orangutan-builds-a-hammock/

The orangutan's ability to build a hammock does not change its responsibility towards its environment (as its ability to alter it is still very low). However, my ability to start a fire does come with significant responsibility.

Where do beavers and their damns land in your estimation?

If we plotted potential for environmental impact(Y) vs moral agency(X), beavers would be up and to the left, orangutans bottom right and humans up and to the right (beating both on both axis).

Yes to your link, no to “humans / conscious decision-making are not nature.” Moreover, morality is itself a naturally emergent phenomenon of evolution. Charles Darwin even proposed this, and we have found it to hold true again and again.

"morality is itself a naturally emergent phenomenon of evolution".

Sure, but now that we have this evolutionary mechanism we also have more responsibility than cyanobacteria (which is what my original comment was about).

Humans certainly are nature. In a very real sense, every part of us is "natural", and we are emergent properties of the natural world. Figs do not grow on thistles.

So what is not natural according to you?

Well, it's certainly hard to define. Just as any grocery store can slap an "all-natural" label on nearly any product, so too can we.

But my point here is more that we are not consciously-created products, at least not yet. For now, we're still the results of a "natural" evolutionary process.

The first definition of natural returned when I google the word is

> existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

So when you are trying to say that what is caused by humans is natural too, then you are clearly contradicting the dictionary definition of the word. Which is what I was trying to draw your attention to when I asked the question.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com