well yes, that's fascinating and revelatory, but claiming nuclear power like the chernobyl station is natural, as you did, is stretching the definition of the word "natural"
generally, if something requires you to build a giant power plant, cooling towers, mine and enrich uranium, then initiate a controlled thermal fission reaction to drive a turbine, we'd tend to define that as a man-made or artificial rather than a natural process or something you're likely to stumble across in nature. I mean, I don't want to belabour what I thought was an uncontroversial correction, but if everything is natural according to the brb definition (ipads? just atoms, mate. Totally natural), it's somewhat pointless to use it as a defence of nuclear power as you have
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sat 20 Feb 2021, 0:26,
Share,
Reply)
well no - if something exists in the universe then it is natural
or are you arguing that the universe is unnatural?
anything else would be supernatural - and that is just silly.
like, do you imagine human beings as somehow existing and operating outside of nature?
(
artifus is doing it all wrong, Sat 20 Feb 2021, 1:32,
Share,
Reply)
So the opposite of supernatural is subnatural.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Sat 20 Feb 2021, 2:12,
Share,
Reply)
playing with semantics i know but i really don't get it
what underlying concept is being hinted at? sub or super both are outside the realm of human experience?
(
artifus is doing it all wrong, Sat 20 Feb 2021, 2:13,
Share,
Reply)
repeating, myself, if your definition of the term "natural" is "everything", which isn't a widely held one in this context or any other, than it's fatuous to use it as a defence of nuclear power like the Chernobyl plant
And by fatuous I'm using the dictionary definition of "silly and pointless", but feel free to substitute in your own definition as you have want to do.
"Nothing wrong with nuclear power plants"
"Why not?"
"Well, they're made of stuff that's found in the universe. Same as ox tongues and supernovas and ak47s and anthrax bacillus. all natural. Need I say more?"
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sat 20 Feb 2021, 3:35,
Share,
Reply)
nope - try again
hint: less fiction - more science
(
artifus is doing it all wrong, Sat 20 Feb 2021, 3:37,
Share,
Reply)
well, I was hoping to draw brb out to double down again rather than concede to an obvious but minor error
because we all know the sky falls on your head when you admit to saying something wrong or stupid
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sat 20 Feb 2021, 3:54,
Share,
Reply)
Artifus is exactly correct.
Things are either natural and in existence (or potential existence), or they're supernatural and they're not.
(
brb homonecrobatrachophile, Sat 20 Feb 2021, 14:45,
Share,
Reply)
the opposite of natural is artificial, not supernatural
happily, language is democratic: it's not that you're wrong per se, just that very, very few people will agree with you.
perhaps there's a facebook group you can join :)
(, Sat 20 Feb 2021, 20:10, Share, Reply)
cool - now tell us all what pedantic means
(
artifus is doing it all wrong, Sat 20 Feb 2021, 20:14,
Share,
Reply)
is it like
bending the runners in a three-drawer filing cabinet, so that the drawer doesn't stop when it's pulled out? or filling the stationery tray with thumb tacks?
(, Sat 20 Feb 2021, 20:34, Share, Reply)
oh wait,
add lead weights to the drawer-fronts and super-glue the stationery tray first?
(, Sun 21 Feb 2021, 4:10, Share, Reply)
there ya go
not that hard this thinking thing, is it?
(
artifus is doing it all wrong, Sun 21 Feb 2021, 4:41,
Share,
Reply)
'the opposite of natural is artificial, not supernatural'
Nice, we're nearly in agreement. We're close, I promise.
Artificiality is an illogical conceptual throwback to a time when it was common to think of mankind as special and separate from nature (because God made everything for us, and nature must be tamed). But man is not special, separate, artificial, contrived, or fake. We exist entirely within nature. We are as natural as the other tool using animals, and the stuff we make is as natural as the stuff they make.
Why should a birds nest, termite colony, or beaver dam be considered natural, but something built by a human is artificial? What exactly is the distinction being made?
(
brb homonecrobatrachophile, Sat 20 Feb 2021, 21:37,
Share,
Reply)
"If something requires you blah blah blah"...
No ifs, no nands, what you said about fission reactors and ibex has been shown to be bollocks.
You can get increasingly specific if you like, but that will only make you slightly less wrong, it won't make me less right.
Fission is natural, it's happening all the time. Exploiting it is no less natural than exploiting any other resource or process.
Ask yourself this, is tool use demonstrated by animals natural or not? Assuming you agree it's natural, what is it in your mind that makes human tool use unnatural?
(
brb homonecrobatrachophile, Sat 20 Feb 2021, 14:47,
Share,
Reply)
shhh!
no one else wants to look after the crayons!
(
artifus is doing it all wrong, Sat 20 Feb 2021, 20:17,
Share,
Reply)
and well worthy of custodianship
plus they taste great
(
artifus is doing it all wrong, Sat 20 Feb 2021, 22:07,
Share,
Reply)