
Next Nature – a philosopher redefines technology as part of nature - dnetesn
http://grist.org/people/this-philosopher-has-a-new-definition-of-nature-and-it-includes-traffic-jams/
======
mrob
Redefining words like this harms clarity of communication. Nature means things
not designed or built by humans. Of course nothing on Earth has completely
escaped the influence of man, but no ordinary person thinks a traffic jam is
nature.

Van Mensvoort wants "nature" to mean "uncontrollable". This is doubly
misleading, because not only does it include traffic jams (in car-favoring
political climates like the US), even the most untouched wilderness is in
practice controlled, as it only exists thanks to human civilization making
laws to preserve it. The definition of "nature" becomes even more politicized
than it already is, as whether something can be controlled or not is largely
politics.

The traditional definition has its problems, but just because there's no clear
boundary between nature and culture doesn't make the distinction meaningless.
Van Mensvoort should coin a new word or phrase for his concept.

~~~
pygy_
_> Redefining words like this harms clarity of communication._

I've yet to read TFA, but, I disagree with this. Natural vs artificial is a
false dichotomy, and the existing definition of nature (a biblical remnant) is
hampering our ability to envision our world properly, form IT to GMO to
medically assisted procreation to climate change to general AI.

Humans are primates, we're part of nature as is everything we create.
Artificial just is a subset of natural.

What is evolving is the information vector.

It's been DNA for billions of years, then culture (brain to brain), which
actually predates humanity. Big cats learn hunting by imitation. Birds of the
same species but of different locations sing different, learned songs, non
human primates communicate symbolically and have regional accents.

We refined language, oral communication and developed mnemonic techniques like
story telling, singing and poetry, which all must have been technological
revolutions when they were invented (technology is a subset of culture).

We then started to externalize it with engraved, then manuscript then printed
writing.

Then off course came telecommunication and computers, which are able to
manipulate information independently.

This has been a continuum, and trying to set humans aside just because you
happen to be one is a mistake.

On one side, you have green nuts who reject en masse nuclear energy (which
would help mitigate the ongoing greenhouse cataclysm) and GMO (Monsanto's
practices and products are horrible, but one shouldn't throw the baby with the
bathwater). On the other one you have conservatives who reject social and
reproductive progress because it goes against imaginary "laws of nature".

Now general AI is around the corner, and brains will likely go the way of the
dodo.

We're going to get squeezed between global warming/ocean acidification and the
robotic revolution. That's not a bad thing in the grand scheme of things, but
it won't be pleasant when it occurs.

If we want a chance to make the right decisions to make it at least less
painful, we should be armed with the best available mental tools, and putting
ourselves out of nature is a basic mistake that we should avoid. We're not
magic.

~~~
mrob
Natural vs artificial is not purely a false dichotomy, because it conveys
information. A wolf is nature. A dog is not nature. I don't think either of
those categorizations are controversial, even though humans have altered wolf
personalities by killing all the bold ones, and even though humans only
actively selected a small part of the dog genome, and even though wolves and
dogs are genetically very similar. Wolves and dogs are widely accepted as
different categories. The existence of marginal cases, eg. dog-wolf hybrids,
does not change this any more than the fact that cabbage and kale are the same
species makes the words "cabbage" and "kale" meaningless.

You can argue that "nature" is not a useful categorization, and that it's
mostly used for political arguments, but the proposed redefinition only makes
that problem worse. And it still doesn't solve the problem of marginal cases.
All it accomplishes is making the word "nature" more confusing.

~~~
pygy_
I use "wild" or "raw", vs artificial to describe such phenomena, even though
it is of little practical use.

How does the redefinition make anything worse?

My take is that, since nature is everything there is, it becomes useless as a
concept and can be safely eliminated from the discourse. Its current
definition is poisonous.

------
ThomPete
This has been my view for many years now.

I tried to explore it partly here [http://000fff.org/he-power-of-digital-
ecoystems](http://000fff.org/he-power-of-digital-ecoystems) trying to define
digital ecosystems as an extension of biological ones.

I would even go so far as to claim that technology is the result of our genes
"trying to" find ways to spread themselves. Technology is a much better medium
for that than human evolution. Biology, technology. They are both systems that
carry information, pattern recognizing feedback loops that extend themselves
further and further.

------
otoburb
Kevin Kelly[1] had a similar viewpoint where technology could be viewed as an
organism. This was clarified in his book _What Technology Wants_ [2], where
the chapters are online.

[1] [http://kk.org](http://kk.org)

[2] [http://kk.org/books/what-technology-wants/](http://kk.org/books/what-
technology-wants/)

~~~
ThomPete
Although is view in that book always felt slightly theistic. And so I was not
surprised when I heard an interview him recently where I realized he is
somehow spiritual in his thinking.

------
mbrock
Another interesting philosophical take on this is Timothy Morton's 2009 book
"Ecology Without Nature".

[http://www.amazon.com/Ecology-without-Nature-Rethinking-
Envi...](http://www.amazon.com/Ecology-without-Nature-Rethinking-
Environmental/dp/0674034856)

------
ilaksh
Philosopher doing his job which is partly to decompose our worldviews. Natural
vs artificial false dichotomy is an important topic that has been explored by
several well-known philosophers. Off the top of my head the 'noosphere'
concept seems related.

------
medymed
Innovation in philosophy I guess can be redefining something new, something
that hasn't been redefined countless times already.

Redefining free will? So last-millenium...

Cool story though!

------
rikkus
Zen agrees: Spontaneity comes naturally. It is impossible to act unnaturally.

