For technology and science, is there an objective distinction between what is natural and what is not?
Humans are just animals. Anything we do is still natural and part of nature. I think we give ourselves too much credit.
I fundamentally think there is a difference... But thinking more I'm not sure where that line would be...
It's tricky to think about. I'm not sure there is one.
I consider "nature" to be something not created or (drastically) shapes by humans.
How drastic, would you consider a log cabin natural?
I don't think so. There are different definitions of "natural" for different reasons & purposes, & I don't think any single one would serve for all purposes.
Well I was thinking about biological human enhancement, and at what point we could draw a line between what is natural and what is not.
I don't see how *any* "inhancement" could be considered "natural."
Natural isn't always good. Unnatural isn't always bad.
I agree with that. I'm just wondering if there is a point between a bionic implant and eating a nutritious diet for example, where the enhancement becomes unnatural or artificial.
Something natural is an item that has not been manipulated by a being?
Wait that means honey is not natural, lol.
I got nothin.
How about not being manipulated by a human being?
Maybe, but you can argue that humans are natural, therefore everything we do is natural.