>>18587814
A beaver's damn exists to serve the beaver's survival but the relationship between Man and modern technology is inverted: the Technological System is an artificial, parasitical meta-organism that uses humans to advance itself.

>>18587820
>artificial
why?
>parasitical
medicine and modern housing that allows you not to die of cold is parasitical?
>advance itself
and it's bad because?

>>18587821
>word by word "refutation"
You got filtered.

>>18587821
>bird's nest
>beaver's dam
The artifact is expendable so long as the species thrives.

>man's technology
The species is expendable so long as the artifact thrives.

The focus of natural selection shifts in an unnatural way. And in any case, you can't pretend you have a valid analogy when the relationship between its main constituents is inverted in one of the cases you're comparing.

>>18587840
So you think people develop technologies that progressively make their lives worse for no reason and there's absolutely zero reason or benefit of technological progress?

>>18587902
>So you think people develop technologies that progressively make their lives worse for no reason
>for no reason
The reason is they don't know it's making their lives progressively worse. Hardly anyone knows how things really used to be even a few generations earlier. A human lifespan is too short to experience all but the short-term consequences of "progress". The technology-induced problems each generation inherits is "just the ways things are". To a normal person, digging further isn't even worth doing because they can't imagine living without all this shit their ancestors didn't need. Their only recourse is to double down on technological "problem-solving".

>>18587814
Beaver dams and bird nests are built from evolutionary instincts, while human structures are built from the uniquely human ability to reason about the world and transmit complex information

>>18587814
Because the nest and dam were produced by instinct, not artifice.

>>18588061
>>18588063
why are human ability to reason and transmit complex information is not an evolutionary instinct?

>>18588197
Because what you said is incoherent.

>>18588063
Humans instinctively build shelters because they want to be protected from the elements

>>18588836
>Humans instinctively build shelters
"Instinctively built shelters" end up being straw and mud huts or some dugouts.

>>18588842
So in other words no different from haphazardly built bird nests or beaver dams

>>18588843
There's a difference even on that level, since humans don't seem to have any built-in template even for the most basic shelter, but putting that side, your analogy breaks down as soon as you get to more elaborate architecture that requires explicit reasoning.

>>18588849
>since humans don't seem to have any built-in template even for the most basic shelter
That's not true at all, you're just too divorced from nature to have ever needed to instinctively build a shelter but I promise you, it comes fairly natural when the need arises

File: studious pepe.jpg (64 KB, 810x611)

64 KB JPG

>>18587814
This is a stupid question with an obvious answer. I don't think I will actually give you the straight answer, I will be a cunt and ask another question.

Do you think ants have little scientists and engineers figuring out the best way to build the ant hive and they have to write this down and teach it to successive generations of ants? How do ants know how to build their hive?

>>18588855
Ask a chatbot to help you with reading comprehension.

everyone itt thinks that the ability of humans to craft and engineer didn't emerge as any other skill of any other animal but just mysteriously popped into existence from nowhere and nothing by random chance, absolutely unexplainable. another proof this board is full of midwit retards.

>>18588938
>all the voices in my head are saying this thing i'm hallucinating
>no, i will not take my meds

>>18587820
>Technological System
what fucking system? technologies is a very broad thing, it can be an iphone and a stone wheel

>parasitical
even if we play along this cringe position on technologies as a parasite (which requires insane mental gymnastic) - you do benefit from technologies - at worst relationship is mutualistic

>metaorganism
what does it mean in your head? you think you can just put meta before words to sound cool, retard?

absolute fucking pseudo-intellectual midwit

>>18587840
>The artifact is expendable so long as the species thrives.
Are you literally just putting words you think sound cool in sentences and hope for the best?
Is this also you >>18587820 ?
This sentence doesn't make any sense. You think birds are sacrificing their nests to save their species or something? Is this from a cartoon you watched?

>The species is expendable so long as the artifact thrives.
Is it because we build data centers for AI or something? I don't understand - give me an example where humans decided they will sacrifice themselves to save technology and where it was necessary to begin with. It sounds nonsensical.

>The focus of natural selection shifts in an unnatural way.
Natural selection is when better adapted organism survives and preproduces. In "unnatural way" is like what? Reverse of that? So less adapted organisms survive and preproduce?

>relationship between its main constituents is inverted
Relationship between humans and animals is inverted? Because if you tried to say relationship between humans and their creations and relationship between animals and their creations this is not how you say it. How is it inverted? Lets say a bird nest and a human house - how relationship between a bird and its nest and a human and their house is inverted? In what way? People build houses then sleep outside? Holy fucking cringe holy shit

>>18588856
>Do you think ants have little scientists and engineers figuring out the best way to build the ant hive and they have to write this down and teach it to successive generations of ants?
No
>How do ants know how to build their hive?
instinctively mostly

Now, will you elaborate how is this related to OP question or you'll just fart something incoherent and concede?

>>18588961
>what fucking system?
The Technological System.

> technologies is a very broad thing,
That's why I elaborated on what I mean by the "relationship between Man and technology".

>you do benefit from technologies - at worst relationship is mutualistic
Says your religion.

>>metaorganism
>what does it mean
In our context, it means a larger-scale and more abstract entity whose survival functions are implemented by the interactions of many smaller organisms.

>>18588985
Ask a chatbot to help you with reading comprehension.

>>18588849
>humans don't seem to have any built-in template even for the most basic shelter
Neither do mosquitos. Do you think mosquitos are more like humans? Or maybe different animals have different instincts for different things

>>18588997
>Neither do mosquitos.
Ok. Then mosquitoes are not analogous to birds, either, when it comes to building a shelter. What now?

Some real dumb fucking animals on this board.

>>18588991
>The Technological System
makes no sense. what do you mean by this? why is the word "system" used?

>That's why I elaborated on what I mean by the "relationship between Man and technology".
bro you spewed extremely embarrassing cringe pseudo-intellectual shit that can be re-written in one sentence "I think technologies are parasites" - this is your whole statement. And since you did not correct yourself I assume you think shit like penicillin is also a parasite on the body of human society? that's just crazy person mumbling

>Says your religion.
No it's pretty much objective opinion. Humans benefit from technologies. Some humans may be hurt by some technologies, but even in that scenario its only because it is beneficial for other humans, which are using harmful technologies as a tool. Are is it just about the generic facebook boomer "kids and their tiktoks"?

>>18588993
I unironically did because I couldn't decipher your incoherent rambling because you try to sound smart on anonymous forum for some reason (absolutely retarded pointless behavior) and still couldn't understand. I think you don't understand it either, this is why you reply with a vague passive-aggressive sissy insult instead of elaborating. Eat shit clown

>>18589001
What analogy?

>>18587820
T-thanks Uncle Ted!

>>18589001
so you spent your whole time in this thread defending that beaver dam cannot be exactly 1 to 1 compared to like, an industrial complex made by humans? alright

>>18589022
>i don't know basic things therefore they make no sense and you're at fault
You're a mentally ill monkey incapable of rational discussion.

>>18588988
I will ask a very coherent rhetorical question that will lead you to the very obvious answer.

>instinctively mostly
Are instincts natural or artificial?

>>18589027
you had 2 opportunities to elaborate but instead you sperg out, it's an automatic concede. sorry bro, better luck next time

File: brainlet-team.png (276 KB, 1066x600)

276 KB PNG

>>18589024
>i don't know what the discussion is about but here's my two cents anyway

>>18589026
>i don't understand OP's analogy

>>18589028
yes instincts are natural, so?

File: brainlet4.png (171 KB, 765x682)

171 KB PNG

>>18589029
>you just lost your opportunity to hear more about my 80 IQ brown opinions
Tragic.

>>18589031
OP is asking why things build by animals are seen as natural while things build by humans are seen as unnatural, how your posts answer this exactly?

>>18589035
lmao he opened the tactical reply images folder, all the sophisticated intellectual façade is gone, he's posting basedjaks now LMAO

>>18589036
>OP is asking why things build by animals are seen as natural while things build by humans are seen as unnatural, how your posts answer this exactly?
By spelling out a major difference in the relationship between creator and creation between the two cases.

>>18589038
so one is natural and other is unnatural because there are different aspects to them? and what specifically is natural and what is unnatural is decided by random chance or is there some explanation to it?

>>18589040
>so one is natural and other is unnatural because there are different aspects to them?
That's not what my post says. Ask a chatbot for help with reading comprehension, dumb animal.

>>18589050
Alright, the one case has one kind of relationship and the other case has other kind of relationship. Is this better? Is this enough for little baby? Is baby not grumpy anymore? Can you now explain how this makes one natural and the other unnatural and how did you come up to this conclusion?

>>18589058
>the one case has one kind of relationship and the other case has other kind of relationship
Right. Now, do you understand what an analogy is, you tar-black gorilla? Because if you do, you should be able to see how what you said rules out an analogy.

>>18589075
Can you now explain how this makes one natural and the other unnatural and how did you come up to this conclusion?

>>18589082
We'll continue this discussion once you take your meds and confirm that you understand OP isn't making a valid analogy.

Protip: you will fail to do so in your next post.

>>18589084
Ok, OP isn't making a valid analogy.
Can you now explain how this makes one natural and the other unnatural and how did you come up to this conclusion?

>>18589089
>Ok, OP isn't making a valid analogy.
Ok. Now let's walk your retarded ass through this step-by-step: do you think there was some kind of reason OP chose to bring up birds/nests, beavers/dams etc.?

>>18589092
bro either say why this makes one natural and the other unnatural or I'll be on my way, I don't have time or energy babysitting your emotional nervous breakdown. also it starts to look like you're not even sure what to say or how to explain your retarded and obviously wrong position. are you just hoping you will figure it out if you stretch the conversation? are you buying time for god prayers? just either reply with your retarded opinion and I will piss on it or I'll accept your concede

>>18589106
>admits he can't comprehend the OP
>mentally ill blathering instead

>>18589111
ok I accept your concede

>>18587814
Because beavers are popperian creatures, while humans are gregorian creatures

>>18589092
>do you think there was some kind of reason OP chose to bring up birds/nests, beavers/dams etc.?
Since the tar-black gorilla can't figure it out, I'll just spell it out: OP is trying to imply that nests are to birds and dams are to beavers as technology is to humans, under the premise that the artifact in each case is a natural outcome of a natural relationship. But if the animal cases represent the natural relationship, while the human case turns out to be a literal inversion, then human artifacts are unnatural. That's where OP's line of reasoning actually leads if you do it right.

>>18589131
lmao, you were so terrified of me coming back and pissing on your opinion you replied to your own post? ok, I'll try to be nice here - I will ignore it and I will even give you the last word so you can reply with some retarded shit and calm your destroyed ego a little bit, I'll also ignore it so don't worry. the fact that I drove you to this state is enough reward for me

>>18589131
>the seething braindamaged monkey can't respond to this

>>18588834
How?

>>18589215
What's an instinct?

File: bro let me handle this guy.png (1.76 MB, 1008x1040)

1.76 MB PNG

>>18589032
>instincts are natural
Ants build hives by following their natural instincts.

Beavers build dams.

Birds build nests.

Unlike a human skyscraper, which is artificial.

Humans do not have natural instincts compelling us to forge steel beams and rivet them together. Just as ants do not have scientists, engineers et cetera.. as I mentioned in my earlier post >>18588856 .

File: beaver.jpg (163 KB, 1030x1280)

163 KB JPG

>>18589288
Wait those are groundhogs not beavers, though groundhogs build burrows by following their instincts.

File: beaving.jpg (151 KB, 950x706)

151 KB JPG

>>18589288
Actually they are marmots not groundhogs.

>>18589288
>Humans do not have natural instincts compelling us to forge steel beams and rivet them together.
It has led humanity to find ways to inhabit every type of geography available... from deep amazonian jungle, to deserts, to living in pure ice through igloo.

Are you sure your argument holds up?... humans do have instincts, otherwise tou wouldn't feel the need to scratch when it itches

The difference between an animal and a human is that the human can CHOOSE not to scratch even when the body is telling it to do it. It has control over its will.

File: pavlovs dog.jpg (234 KB, 1902x1902)

234 KB JPG

>>18589294
Humans evolved a neo-cortex to store information about their environment and analyze it logically, but it is a stretch to claim the results of this are the equivalent of what the beaver is doing here >>18589291 , reacting to stimuli instinctively, the way you would react to the smell of putrecine or some other text book example.

A key difference is that instincts are involuntary, you flinch if you hurt your hand, there are no consequences however to being irrational, as you are being right now. I mean if you want to stop being obtuse you could read into it further, you can start with Pavlov's dog experiment to help distinguish between instinctive and learned mechanisms in the mind, which is a common problem in psychology.

>>18589294
>Are you sure your argument holds up?
I'm not sure his argument holds up but I am sure nothing in your post even contradicts his belief, let alone refutes his argument.

>>18589316
>reacting to stimuli instinctively, the way you would react to the smell of putrecine
I gag whenever I come close to shit

To your people, its a delicacy and a remedy.

>>18589316
>A key difference is that instincts are involuntary
You donr really know what is instinct and what is conditioning. Dumbass.

To me, born in this era, rape is something vile and horrible. To someone born 2000 years ago, its prolly the way the world works.

Imagine having the brain of an ant and the ego of a planet. Yikes.

>>18589353
>To me, born in this era, rape is something vile and horrible. To someone born 2000 years ago, its prolly the way the world works.
I'll make it explicit, since you've made it abundantly clear all day that you're stjpid:

The instinct is to reproduce
The conditioning is how we go about it

>>18589353
>i gag whenever I come close to shit
>To your people, its a delicacy and a remedy.
Same thing here... instinct: replenish energy and acquire nutrients
Conditioning: I've been cultured to eat prepared food, your culture to drink cow urine and eat dished poop.

You see?.

The point is that we, like animals, have instincts... but we have the capacity to choose, so we don't go to the nearest resource available anymore but rather we use the accumulated knowledge (called culture) to gain a headstart. Thats why I live in a brick and mortar house while your people live in mudhuts right in the beginning of the 2000s.

:)

>>18587814
"Artificial" = man-made.

A beaver's dam is not man-made, therefore it is not artificial.

File: brainlet21.png.png (210 KB, 1024x1024)

210 KB PNG

>The point is that we, like animals, have instincts... but we have the capacity to choose, so we don't go to the nearest resource available anymore but rather we use the accumulated knowledge (called culture) to gain a headstart. Thats why I live in a brick and mortar house while your people live in mudhuts right in the beginning of the 2000s.
Seems like this particular breed of retards is instinctively attracted to brick and mortar dwellings. Fascinating.

File: poetic-justice-v0-d1azl49(...).jpg (122 KB, 1000x997)

122 KB JPG

>>18589406

>>18589386
The only right answer itt. Every other poster here is a complete retard

>>18589417
Whole thread is just sophistry

>>18589417
Humans not animals? Not part of the ecosystem? Humans are not part of nature?

We didnt inhabit this planet naturally? We musta came in spaceships then. Just because something is canon in Academia doesnt mean its founded in truth or that it is real.

>>18589423
The term "artificial" specifically refers to "made by humans". You are confusing it with the more mainstream meaning of this word which is influenced by sci-fi where "artificial" means something bad. Artifact and artificial come from the Latin word that means "craft"

>>18589716
>The term "artificial" specifically refers to "made by humans".
I know the meaning of artificial, dumbass. I know geography.

I know enough to not have a container conception of the geographic space but rather see it as instance of the totality. Do you know what that is?

There is no artificial, humans are part of nature.

Imagine thinking you are correcting someone when you dont even know the terms used on the discipline of the subject

Peak dunning Kruger

Do you know Milton Santos, anon? Have you ever read anything geography related?

Can you bring something to the conversation or are you just gonna continue going in circles like you alwayd do?

>>18589732
How a category that is defined as "made by humans" conflicts with the notion that humans are part of nature?

>>18589797
Because you are separating them?...

>>18589386
>"Artificial" = man-made.
>A beaver's dam is not man-made, therefore it is not artificial.


Man is part of nature as much as nature is part of man. Seeing them as separate negates our responsibility on what happens here.

Youre really fucking stupid, lmao. What kind of question is that, hahahahaha

>>18589798
I have 3 folders. Folder A, folder B and folder C.
I put folder A and folder B inside folder C. Are both folder A and folder B inside folder C or are they separated?

>>18589876
Good for you, sweaty, congratulstions!

File: 1784564433661607.png (1.08 MB, 700x699)

1.08 MB PNG

>>18587814
The actual threshold should be whether all the production can be done by one individual or whether it needs a supply chain and division of labour.