Talk:Using 'natural' as a criterion for prioritisation

From Opasnet
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?

Closing statement: 'Natural' cannot be effectively used as a criterion.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:
⇤--1: . Cannot because the term natural is ambiguous. Jouni (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
←--3: . If loss of biodiversity is caused by nature or a non-human species, is it therefore natural and preferred over human actions to prevent the loss? Jouni (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
←--4: . It is not usually clear which outcomes in a complex system are caused by which action or event, and therefore it is not easy or possible to say, what was caused by humans and what by nature. Jouni (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
←--5: . The environment changes anyway all the time, so what is the original, natural state that was untouched by the man? Jouni (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
⇤--2: . Instead, othen criteria should be used such as amount of biodiversity. Jouni (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)