Man VS Nature

4/21/2014

I was recently having a discussion on a philosophy forums about what makes more aesthetically
pleasing works, man or nature. I voted for man and was surprised how much man self-hatred there was.
Not that there is anything wrong with voting for nature, but some of the responses I received seemed to
imply that man couldnt dare compete and that man was evil by comparison.
Aesthetically, at least visually, is really mans only contestable battle with nature when it comes
to who does what better. Ive always been a sucker for water falls, myself. Nature also has a monopoly
on overwhelming grandeur with huge mountains, not to mention entire galaxies and planets, and all the
other heavenly bodies. I thought I might have to concede on this topic altogether or at least wait until I
had done more research, but then I remembered Ayn Rand talking about how beautiful the New York
skyline was and how it was superior to anything done by nature. I googled images of it, most of them
taken at night, and I may have to agree with her. It was a veritable sight of beauty on par with the best
nature has to offer. However, despite the pyramids and the Hanging Gardens, man might be
outnumbered if quantity is also a factor to be considered with quality.
And speaking of Hanging Gardens, would that count as a hybrid? Though, to be fair, anything
man makes technically is also a work of nature. There is no such thing as something that isnt natural,
because if it is allowed to happen by nature then it is. Also, all the materials man uses to construct will
come from nature, so at what point does it become artificial? Someone pointed out the human brain as
proof of natures work, but I think since there is somewhat of an arbitrary divide between man and
nature anyway, since man is a sub-categorization of nature, I would say that, yes, the human brain is the
finest work of nature, but it would have to be disqualified in consideration of a competition between
man versus nature, otherwise you would also have to include every consequence of the human brain
and then the competition would be impossible, since it would really be more of a cooperation between
man and nature. As Friedrich Schelling said, I also believe that man is nature becoming self-aware of
itself, and therefore I believe that a conscious nature does its best works rather than when it creates by
accident.
Now, if we were to consider music, the opposite would be true of what was true in regards to
visual beauty. Nature may have the serene sounds of water falls, rain drops, and birds and things, but
man has an unlimited assortment of music to choose from that dwarfs nature in the aural game. We
can cover different moods, more diverse sounds, etc. And also regarding almost every other art form
nature would be barred by default of the fact that they are all human artifices that an unconscious
nature cant engage in.
JJ Rousseau was full of shit. I havent read enough of Hobbes yet to know his particulars so I
shant comment on him yet. However, man is always accused of being immoral, destructive, etc.
whereas nature is always brutal nearly without exception. Man can recognize brutal behavior, and man
has a choice. It is good to criticize another man when he acts inappropriately, but to set nature as the
ideal is a ridiculous notion. Though man is sometimes guilty for his immoral acts that can lead to harm

to his fellow man or creatures, nature destroys without care amorally. What would you rather be
attacked by: an immoral man with a knife or an amoral godless killing machine like a bear?
Protagoras said that man was the measure of all things, and so it is in this world. An animal has
no purpose except what man gives it. Why does an animal serve no purpose? Well, I guess it may
reduce to circular reasoning if we don't define our axioms/premises. I think purpose is defined by
conscious beings and thus only man has that right now. I am not advocating animal cruelty, but rather I
am saying if an animal is destroyed inadvertently by the acts of man, so be it, it was its natural time to
go. Since man is as natural as any other species, he also possesses the right to compete with his fellow
animals and eliminate them from existence if he so chooses. However, the ONLY argument against this
is if doing so has a negative impact on man. Global warming is a problem not because it harms the
Earth, but because harming the Earth harms us. Destroying trees is a problem not because of the trees,
but because man needs trees to survive, and probably also appreciates the aesthetic serenity of being
among them. Destroying plants or animals that have medicinal value is also a bad idea. However, we
shouldnt be concerned with some useless organism like the fly or anything like that. Animals and
nature is not valuably intrinsically, but only given value by a conscious being. When another animal
other than man can attain that level, then it has earned the same rights that Protagoras as attributed to
man, but not until then.
Men can be compassionate for one another and show brotherly love. Nature devoid of feelings
and morals tells the stronger to eat the weaker. There is no unity in nature; order only arises out of
chaos. Man has created works of art over a short life span. Nature lacking conscious thought has only
arrived at beauty blindly via an exponentially huge head start advantage. Man can pillory another man
for being immoral. Nature rewards amoral behavior by having the murderous creature absorb its kill as
food for it and its spawn. Man has provided sanctuary for nature, but do you ever see that happen vice
versa?1 The most caring and useful animals are those domesticated by man. Nature without man is a
dumb zombie. Remember that for immorality to exist there needs to be the option of making the
morally correct choice, and that is why you should fear nature, because nature will fucking kill you and
not feel guilty about it.
So, why is it that man is always hating on his fellow man as evil? You should take pride in the
fact that man can express the woes of guilt not just for himself, but his fellow man. It is more than
nature will ever do. You can fix your problems, you can build. Almost no animal is capable of building,
and the ones that can suck at it. Embrace technology. Embrace expansion. Embrace globalization.
Embrace capitalism. Your fellow man can listen to logic, nature will not. Modern man may not be
perfect, but times are always getting better. And why? By leaving nature further and further behind.
We are always getting more freedoms, better medicines, more conveniences, tastier foods. Living in
bigger cities causes us to see more perspectives and to appreciate our fellow man better. Reverting the
trend, and setting nature as the goal will cause a devolution. Do you want to put man back in the cave?
Think of how a caveman would act morally. Think of how long you would live as a caveman. How badly
would you suffer? How lousy would life be? How poor would art be? Shit everywhere. No movies, no
books, no video games. The advancement of technology and the political progress of man (and any

potential conscious beings) is what makes life interesting and worth living. To stagnate would be to live
a meaningless existence; every day would be Groundhog Day.
Nature created germs, disease, insects, and the anus. Man created sanitation, medicine,
insecticide, and anal sex. Man is always having to plug up the mistakes of nature.
-Greg dratsab Huffman
1

This debatably happens on extremely rare occasions, such as hearing stories about dolphins or dogs
protecting a child. However, it is infinitesimally small compared to the shelters man has provided for
animals.

(12/27/2014) Response to Sam MacLaggan

"The thought of my own self worthlessness in the grand scheme of things is one that brings depression
and sorrow"
The only world that should matter to a man is what is in front of his own two eyes. That is the world,
and that is the only thing that is important. Cold galaxies and taciturn planets aren't sentient, and should
only be looked at as rooms for the expansion of man; not evidence of his unworthiness. We don't
measure a man by his physical stature, but by his mental capabilities, and in this man exceeds every
other thing nature puts on tap.