Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Fire is a natural phenomenon and I don't see how it can credibly be called an invention. That would be like calling water an invention.

The others, though, are certainly inventions.




I would argue that the ability to make controlled fires was an invention and perhaps the first chemistry humans intentionally performed, but I think it's just a point of semantics.


Well, by that logic neither is electricity, since lightning exists.

And magnets certainly do occur naturaly, and so does nuclear fission and fusion.


I agree. To say that a natually-occurring physical process or phenomenon was invented is nonsensical.

Electricity is not the same as electric power, just as nuclear fission is not the same as a nuclear weapon, just the same as fire is not the same as a coal fired power plant.

Electricity and nuclear fission were discovered, not invented.


I see a lot more natural electricity (lightning, monthly) than I do natural fire (wildfires? Never)


Almost as though methods to prevent wildfires are one of the earliest human inventions.


I mean, the reason I have never seen a wildfire is because they are exceedingly rare in my local biome. Nothing to do with artificial wildfire prevention.


Given the record fire seasons in Colorado and California, not sure how well this comment reads.


It reads just fine. That particular individual has not seen wildfires in person. No need to read anything else into it.


Do you think that electricity can credibly be called an invention?


No, but I distinguish between Electricity, the physical phenomenon, and Electric Power, the application of electric charge to energize a device. Lightning is the obvious example of electricity that is not electric power.


Why not distinguish between fire the physical phenomenon and controlled fire the application of fire to heat up objects or provide light?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: