[x3iv130f]

I had to stop reading this article when it used the term "unnatural quiet".

It is the noise that is unnatural, not the quiet.

Ancient cities teemed with birds and bird songs, so much so that birds were often featured heavily in their creative works.

See: https://aeon.co/essays/the-ancient-world-teemed-with-birds-n...

Now, the artificial has intruded itself into the natural world. When I open the window of my urban apartment, the bird songs I hear have melodies like jackhammers and car alarms. The birds in cities now make the same sounds as the cities.

The natural world has adapted, and in doing so has become the same as the artificial.

[grayfaced]

Birds here still mimic the 90s car alarm (You know the one that cycles between patterns every few seconds) even though I haven't heard that particular car alarm in at least a decade. How long will it take for birds to change that song?

I'm near a military base and I've never heard birds take on the bugle songs that come over loudspeakers (e.g. revelry, taps). I've also never heard birds sing the Ice Cream truck song. What makes some certain sounds so impressionable on birds?

[Dalewyn]

>What makes some certain sounds so impressionable on birds?

I'd hazard a guess it's something similar to how some patterns of noise to us are music, while other patterns of noise are akin to nails screeching across blackboard.

I don't know the science behind it, but if humans find appeal in certain noises then it won't surprise me if our peers upon this planet also do.

[_def]

I'm not sure but to me it sounds like there is some similarity in how a bird modulates sounds and how primitive synthesizers do it, so I guess those sounds are easier to mimic or something

[feet]

You may be shocked to learn that humans are natural. We and our behaviors are part of nature

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

The sounds humans make are. The sounds our machines make are not.

[Dalewyn]

If the products of humans (who are natural) are not natural, then by the same token do you argue beaver dams and beehives are also unnatural/artificial constructs?

If you ask me, everything on Earth including all products of humanity are natural.

This distinction between natural and artificial is primarily based off of a human superiority complex, that humanity is special and superior and masters of this planet. I feel it would benefit all of us as a species to drop that attitude ASAP because it gets in the way of objective judgment.

[DennisP]

The Oxford English dictionary's first definition for the word "artificial" is "made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural."

"Made by humans" is a useful definition of "artificial," because regardless of how we feel about human superiority, in practice we often want to distinguish between things that are made by humans, and things that aren't. If we didn't use the word "artificial" for that, we'd come up with another convenient adjective meaning the same thing (and then probably have semantic arguments over that one).

[feet]

Artificial != unnatural

[DennisP]

OED's first definition for "natural" is "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."

And one of their definitions for "unnatural" is "not existing in nature; artificial."

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

What would be unnatural then?

[Dalewyn]

Something that intrudes upon this universe from another universe, perhaps.

Nothing that is a product of this universe, whether directly or indirectly, is unnatural. Everything is natural, from steel skyscrapers to beaver dams to beehives to planets and stars.

[dTal]

Clearly "natural" and "unnatural" denote categories that it is useful to distinguish between, or we would not have the words. What is to be accomplished by your attempt to redefine the concept into uselessness, apart from making it difficult to discuss environmental issues?

[drewcoo]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unnatural

Words. People use them. They have different meanings.

[BuyMyBitcoins]

You can also use words to express your criticism in a more constructive way instead of being snarky and talking down to the GP like they are an imbecile.

[Guthur]

There is nothing unnatural about our world, stop maintaining this anti human view point, are ants or termites unnatural for example?

This view that humanity is evil is the true racism.

[BLKNSLVR]

There is an underlying anti-nature about the way humans are going about our expansion, however.

[Guthur]

How do you figure, is there some formalisation of what is anti nature? Or is it just some dream a hippy had on lsd at Woodstock?

The world is constantly in flux, there used to be animals the size of houses roaming about and then there wasn't, were they not in tune with nature or something? This is all idealogical nonsense.

[BLKNSLVR]

Or is it just some dream a hippy had on lsd at Woodstock? Let's not, hey? This is HN, one of the last bastions of meaningful discourse left on the Internet.

Human activity didn't wipe out the animals the size of houses, which also means that the overall interdependent ecosystems back then weren't critical to human survival since there were no humans yet. Unlike today. The meteor and subsequent volcanic and tectonic activity were natural occurrences, without which humanity wouldn't be where it is today.

I'm sure that humans can 'science' their way out of many of our potential existential problems, the question I wonder about is what does that cost future generations in terms of the natural wonders that all things "The Earth" has to offer. This, of course, is only tangible to those who value such things, so the argument falls flat against a backdrop of Wall-Street style career ambition which leaves little room for much else.

My reading indicates that human activity is causing environmental damage that has the potential to cause human-society-as-we-know-it existential damage, and this is generally backed up facts about the changes we're seeing in nature - raw data, numbers, about the current state. What this means for the future is hotly debated and, like everyone says 'all models are wrong, some are useful', so, again, it depends on one's point of view as to what value is attributed to nature.

One thing is inarguable, however, which is that human survival is dependent upon a certain level of a functional natural world.

[cyber_kinetist]

I think the commenter is not talking about the validity of climate change or environmental damage, but about the troubles of assigning which is “nature” and “anti-nature”. This dialectic isn’t really helpful to really solve the problem since that if you assign “anti-nature” as both human and corrupt, then the natural argument goes to Malthusian control of populations (believing the existence of “more humans” in itself as dangerous and shaping societal organization within this limited framework)

Instead, I suggest we opt for throwing away the concept of “anti-nature”, and instead acknowledge that humanity is part of nature. What has changed over history is that we are active agents in changing the totality of nature instead of being passive agents only being “affected” by it. This creates a more optimistic path towards a better future, since while it acknowledges that we have the capacity to destroy ourselves it also creates hope that we have the agency to actually “change” nature itself towards a direction we desire. Welcome to the anthropocene… (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene)

[DangitBobby]

Humans have plenty of allies, and we don't need your defense. It's not like we are going to be "criticized for wiping our 60% of all known species on the planet" into extinction.