Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. What could the world look like if dinosaurs had never gone extinct? What could alien lifeforms look like? What kinds of plants and animals might exist in the far future? These questions and more are tackled by speculative biologists, and the Speculative Evolution welcomes all relevant ideas, inquiries, and world-building projects alike. With a member base comprising users from across the world, our community is the largest and longest-running place of gathering for speculative biologists on the web.

While unregistered users are able to browse the forum on a basic level, registering an account provides additional forum access not visible to guests as well as the ability to join in discussions and contribute yourself! Registration is free and instantaneous.

Join our community today!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Where Do You Stand?
All ecosystems and species are inherently valuable, more so than humanity 6 (54.5%)
All ecosystems and species are inherently valuable, but humanity is more so 2 (18.2%)
Ecosystems and species have only as much value as we place on them 3 (27.3%)
Ecosystems and species have no value 0 (0%)
Total Votes: 11
Naturalism vs Post-naturalism
Topic Started: Apr 11 2016, 11:13 AM (4,209 Views)
Scrublord
Member Avatar
Father Pellegrini
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
I'm 99.99% sure most of us here on the Speculative Evolution forum harbor at least some environmentalist sentiments. It's hard not to when your hobby is so grounded in biology, after all. What I've been wondering, though, is where you all stand on a particular issue that's been on my mind for a while--the subject of naturalism and post-naturalism.
Naturalism (as defined here) is the belief that it is foolish or wrong for humanity to change the state of the natural world. Post-naturalism, on the other hand, suggests that humans, as intelligent beings, have a higher moral standing than other life forms and therfore have a right to alter the world around them. Both of these worldviews have their issues--from a naturalist perspective, some legitimately helpful technologies would be seen as undesirable, while from a post-naturalist perspective the enitre idea of preserving nature for its own sake is considered pointless.
This is something that I have often thought about. If the destructive actions of humanity are no mor than the result of our nature as a sapient species, the from a post-naturalist perspective it would be foolish to change that.
Your thoughts?
My Projects:
The Neozoic Redux
Valhalla--Take Three!
The Big One



Deviantart Account: http://elsqiubbonator.deviantart.com

In the end, the best advice I could give you would be to do your project in a way that feels natural to you, rather than trying to imitate some geek with a laptop in Colorado.
--Heteromorph
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Holben
Member Avatar
Rumbo a la Victoria

Finding the right term for what to do is less important that doing it, in my opinion. We should try to avoid wiping out species and causing mass suffering like we currently are because it is the right thing to do. Like it or not, humans have enormously changed many of the ecological systems in which we live, which will harm us as well as the other species that rely on them. Nobody has a sufficient understanding of what the world was like before humans started this whole civilisation thing because there were no modern scientists and there was no modern equipment or methods, so we can't make everything natural again even if we wanted to.
Time flows like a river. Which is to say, downhill. We can tell this because everything is going downhill rapidly. It would seem prudent to be somewhere else when we reach the sea.

"It is the old wound my king. It has never healed."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flisch
Member Avatar
Superhuman
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Scrublord
Apr 11 2016, 11:13 AM
Post-naturalism, on the other hand, suggests that humans, as intelligent beings, have a higher moral standing than other life forms and therfore have a right to alter the world around them.
Way to poison the well, buddy.

An objective discussion this is not.
We have a discord. If you want to join, simply message me, Icthyander or Sphenodon.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LittleLazyLass
Member Avatar
Proud quilt in a bag

I think the first obvious conclusion is that neither extreme is a good thing.
totally not British, b-baka!
Posted Image You like me (Unlike)
I don't even really like this song that much but the title is pretty relatable sometimes, I guess.
Me
What, you want me to tell you what these mean?
Read First
Words Maybe
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Mysterio
Member Avatar
Waiting...
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Isn't post-naturalism just the belief that the presence of humans has the tendency to alter numerous aspects of nature? Like how we bred wolves to become dogs and that sort of thing. There's nothing in my search results when I type in "post-naturalism" about "humans having a higher moral standing" or anything. It's just a term that basically means "humans like to change stuff." It doesn't seem to really be a philosophical movement or belief, like you make it sound.
Dumb Quotes


Coming Soon/To be Rebooted:

How To Hunt Gods - Everything you need to know about Gods and the art of God-killing.

Intrazoology - The world of semi-corporeal lifeforms. A world you walk through every day, without even knowing it.

The Dungeonverse - Magical creatures forced to adapt in huge, underground caverns, while surface-dwelling humans go dungeoneering for treasure.

Crossover - A mish-mash of worlds, with Earth smack in the middle of the chaos. What could go wrong?

no worries


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lamna
Member Avatar


I don't know about all these fancy terms.

But we should try our best to stop messing up the planet, while accepting that it's changed forever and we can't just reset it.

For example, I don't really know if we should be bothering with red squirrels in the UK. Ecologically, grey squirrels do almost exactly the same thing, and they are fairly closely related too. In the grand scheme of things, it's a bit shitty for red squirrels but otherwise nothing much changes, especially in the long-term.
Edited by lamna, Apr 11 2016, 03:19 PM.
Living Fossils

Fósseis Vibos: Reserva Natural


34 MYH, 4 tonne dinosaur.
T.Neo
 
Are nipples or genitals necessary, lamna?
[flash=500,450] Video Magic! [/flash]
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LittleLazyLass
Member Avatar
Proud quilt in a bag

On the potential mis-use of "Post-naturalism" here:
Quote:
 
Finding the right term for what to do is less important that doing it
totally not British, b-baka!
Posted Image You like me (Unlike)
I don't even really like this song that much but the title is pretty relatable sometimes, I guess.
Me
What, you want me to tell you what these mean?
Read First
Words Maybe
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scrublord
Member Avatar
Father Pellegrini
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Here's a better description of what I mean. It's from a sci-fi site, though, so take it with a grain of salt:

Quote:
 
From the Enlightenment up to the mid 21st Century, "natural" was considered more virtuous than humanist self-determination. Naturalism is often credited as the basis for the successes of many progressive social movements following the enlightenment. From the American Revolution to the Gay Rights Movement, naturalism was the basis for the arguments for political change. Naturalism formed the basis for the moral order of people before the genetic and cybernetic revolutions of the 21st century, going so far as to be the foundation of morality in media. Popular films and TV shows in the early 21st Century are often seen as the pinnacle of naturalism in popular culture from super-hero movies that depicted anyone who tries to improve themselves or mankind through "Unnatural means" as the villain; to children's films that depicted humanity and/or civilization as a negative. Many film critics consider a perfect example of naturalist thinking gone wrong to be the film Gattaca, which depicted an unaugmented human in a society of augmented humans as a hero fighting against a failed utopia.


My Projects:
The Neozoic Redux
Valhalla--Take Three!
The Big One



Deviantart Account: http://elsqiubbonator.deviantart.com

In the end, the best advice I could give you would be to do your project in a way that feels natural to you, rather than trying to imitate some geek with a laptop in Colorado.
--Heteromorph
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monster
Member Avatar
Space Oddity

Quote:
 
If the destructive actions of humanity are no mor than the result of our nature as a sapient species, the from a post-naturalist perspective it would be foolish to change that.


I'm not sure about that, as many of those destructive actions are not just destructive to other species but also to us. It would be more foolish not to change behaviours which are causing us problems - that isn't a demonstrating a higher moral standing, that is just stupidity.

As for naturalism, nowhere is untouched by human influence now, and that is irreversible. Everywhere is just some state of 'managed' now. Some states are simply more desirable than others - this is subjective, though.
Flashlights, nightmares, sudden explosions.

'active'
{tumblr}
{Veles}
{10 Million Years of Rain]

Commissions: Open.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lamna
Member Avatar


Ah man, this topic reminded me about ruddy ducks. I miss those guys, they were so cool.

I think that's the only extinction I've personally witnessed. At least noticed.

But at least the Spanish get to keep their inferior version of the ruddy duck.
Edited by lamna, Apr 11 2016, 04:24 PM.
Living Fossils

Fósseis Vibos: Reserva Natural


34 MYH, 4 tonne dinosaur.
T.Neo
 
Are nipples or genitals necessary, lamna?
[flash=500,450] Video Magic! [/flash]
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scrublord
Member Avatar
Father Pellegrini
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Ruddy ducks aren't extinct. . . or are they?
My Projects:
The Neozoic Redux
Valhalla--Take Three!
The Big One



Deviantart Account: http://elsqiubbonator.deviantart.com

In the end, the best advice I could give you would be to do your project in a way that feels natural to you, rather than trying to imitate some geek with a laptop in Colorado.
--Heteromorph
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ebervalius
Member Avatar
Transhuman
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Ruddy Duck as in genus Oxyura? I think they're going well.
The Sirens of the Land of Fire
Codex Ebervaliorum

Spoiler: click to toggle
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Legend
Newborn
 *  *  *
Well, I usually find it difficult to justify halting or reversing human progress, just to save an endangered species of spiders or whatever, since in my view most animals, and probably all, are basically computer programs in organic bodies. That said a lot of animals are quite similar to human children, and it can be considered a sign of psychopathy to treat an animal sadistically.

Personally I don't see this as an either/or thing. It is certainly possible to advance human progress while protecting the environment.

Like this post Zebra. You know you want to.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ànraich
Member Avatar
L'évolution Spéculative est moi

I think it's a moot question. We've already irrecoverably altered the world as a whole. There is no way to restore the plane to pre-civilization ecological status, and especially not pre-industrial ecological status. All we can do now is try to do some damage control and mitigate any major changes our advancements from this point on will make. You can argue for either side, but the fact of the matter is we live in a post-natural world.
We should all aspire to die surrounded by our dearest friends. Just like Julius Caesar.

"The Lord Universe said: 'The same fate I have given to all things from stones to stars, that one day they shall become naught but memories aloft upon the winds of time. From dust all was born, and to dust all shall return.' He then looked upon His greatest creation, life, and pitied them, for unlike stars and stones they would soon learn of this fate and despair in the futility of their own existence. And so the Lord Universe decided to give life two gifts to save them from this despair. The first of these gifts was the soul, that life might more readily accept their fate, and the second was fear, that they might in time learn to avoid it altogether." - Excerpt from a Chanagwan creation myth, Legends and Folklore of the Planet Ghar, collected and published by Yieju Bai'an, explorer from the Celestial Commonwealth of Qonming

Tree That Owns Itself
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Legend
Newborn
 *  *  *
What is "natural" exactly? When a herd of dinosaurs destroys an entire forest per day, that is natural. When humans do it, it is considered unnatural. Are humans not part of nature?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply