Terms "natural" and "ecological"

[Charles Brown]

Without discounting Carrol's caveat on "natural" and "ecological" sowing confusion, there are important concepts such as "nature-for-us" which are  valid for deciding what is to be done in relation to nature. "Nature" is vast and invincible vis-a-vis humanity. How many stars are there ? More than a trillion ? The earth is also powerful relative to us, in the sense that we cannot obliteate the whole earth. An unnatural mode of life is one that leads to destruction of nature-for-us, "pissing in our own soup" so to speak. 
This is pretty clear with respect to "external" nature. The confusion is sown in discussions of "internal" nature or bodily instincts. All other species' activity is dominated by instincts and individuals learning from living individuals. Humans uniquely learn from dead generations of the species (history) and a larger portion of living species members (society); AND humans retain bodily instincts that are preserved and overcome (dominated) by this socio-historical learning, but not utterly obliterated by learning. The internal ecological and natural challenge is to prophesize what is the optimum balance of learning and instinct for happiness and survival. The external ecological or natural challenge is an analogous prophesy.

    The concept of "natural" is "what is in relation to us", or for-us.

         Charles Brown


>>> Carrol Cox <cbcox at rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> 05/12 2:36 PM >>>
> then nothing is unnatural. The term becomes
> meaningless.

Correct, the term always has been meaningless except in contexts where
there is a mutually agreed on *verbal* definition of it. Whenever it
appears in polemics, bourgeois or marxist, in the context of arguing that
a given position ir activity of *some human* is "unnatural" in contrast to
the "natural" position or activity of *some other human* it serves only to
sow endless confusion. *Never* use it in a context in which disagreement
over its meaning exists. "Ecology" should probably also be used in a
"neutral" or technical sense. Then one can argue whether a given
set of ecological relations are destructive, constructive, or irrelevant.
As a polemical term (positive or negative) it clearly only creates
confusion.

This debate is moving in a positive direction: a debate grounded on the
assumption that all parties of it (a) hold fundamental positions in common
and (b) are operating in good faith. Use of such blank checks as "ecology"
or "natural" as polemical terms can destroy those foundations.

The core meaning of "nature" in any context has to be, "what is."

Carrol