We need the wolf • Hacker News Board

Re: We need the wolf

#91

Post by strogonoff » Fri, Nov 27, 2020, 4:53 AM UTC

fogihujy wrote: post #89

strogonoff wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you disagree with the premise, then you are misplacing your argument. I was replying to a comment that argued this cannot be done nicely and mentioned forced relocations of the past. I argue that there was no precedent for relocation of people done in the name of wilderness preservation, which can be voluntary and with downsides mitigated. The premise itself, the idea put forward by OP, is not without downsides an…

The entire premise is a bit shaky and I am not convinced planned re-locations will result in a net positive for the environment. It's quite possible for a human to live in the wilderness alongside the aforementioned wolves (I saw a pack in the distance as late as yesterday). As you say, this sub-thread isn't about that, though. :) For what it's worth, large parts of the remote and sparsely populated areas are being s…

Fair point.

Re: We need the wolf

#92

Post by sebmellen » Sat, Nov 28, 2020, 7:36 AM UTC

Ma8ee wrote: post #34

sebmellen wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: We need the wolf

#93

Post by Ma8ee » Mon, Nov 30, 2020, 8:22 PM UTC

sebmellen wrote: post #92

Ma8ee wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.