Jump to content

Interfere in "Nature"


Recommended Posts

True Story:

Man swims with octopus, befriends octopus.

Week later man sees small shark approach the octopus. 

Man knows shark is going to attack octopus, man knows he could easily scare off shark.

Man does nothing because he doesn't want to "interfere in nature".

Octopus is horribly injured and lives.

 

I think the man should have interfered. 

 

Interfere in nature? Man is part of nature!

 

What would you do and why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2020 at 12:22 AM, GingerRose said:

True Story:

Man swims with octopus, befriends octopus.

Week later man sees small shark approach the octopus. 

Man knows shark is going to attack octopus, man knows he could easily scare off shark.

Man does nothing because he doesn't want to "interfere in nature".

Octopus is horribly injured and lives.

 

I think the man should have interfered. 

 

Interfere in nature? Man is part of nature!

 

What would you do and why?

Who are you to cost the shark a meal? We are not apart of the natural world because we separate ourselves from it. What we do and live in is unnatural. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately, it's up to him whether he wants to take on pet-ownership responsibilities.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not letting sharks eat my friends while I stand by and do nothing. My friends have to realize, though, that I can't always be there to protect them. They will eventually need to learn how to protect themselves or they will never survive. If you didn't know the octopus, would it still be your instinct to help them if you could? I probably would but, in general, I think most living creatures would not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Corona vaccine = interference in nature... 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't befriend an octopus to begin with. 

 

It's a wild animal for a reason. 

 

Who am I to think that animal is above the laws of its environment?

 

Unless you remove it from its environment, the threats of death will always surround them. 

 

That removal however, would be inhumane. 

 

I see it like a friend I used to have. Always got into trouble. I always bailed them out.

 

Eventually it got to the point where I called them out. They need to stand on their own. 

 

My approach caused the friendship to sour, but I was sick of coming to the aid of someone refusing to help themselves. 

 

Same reason I wouldn't interfere in seeing a gang fight. 

 

Remember witnessing a pretty bad one to where they were trying to gang beat a guy to death. All had weapons ranging from stones, to tree branches. 

 

You chose this life. You know the consequences. 

 

I would call the cops, but that's where my help stops. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of our “interferences for nature” whether for ourselves or for the well-being of a certain animal are negative. We upset the climate faster by spewing out carbon emissions, make the ocean raise its pH level unnaturally, kill off certain species because it is unfortunate for us, and bring in invasive species that destroy the natural environment. We can also bring back species and try to keep the environment stable, but it’s an interference and at the cost of some other species lives. As much as people love dogs, isn’t that an interference with nature? I mean look at some of the show dogs bred, or the pug who literally can barely breathe; those are interferences with nature that are negatively impacting the dogs, but we keep them alive even though according to nature they would not survive. Upsetting survival of the fittest is one of the small ways we interfere with nature, but it shouldn’t be of main concern in my opinion when there’s other things we could be doing to not “interfere with nature” negatively.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's interaction, there's already interference. Obviously, it's not possible for us to not do either. What should be done in each and every situation, no clue.

 

In this case, I'd defend my (seriously really cool) octopus pal. Edit: the octopus is my friend, and I care about it. The random shark is not. And sure, it's gotta eat too, but so does everything else at the expense of something.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would echo what others have already said: firstly, an Octopus is not a pet so I would be wary of befriending it unless done so for scientific reasons. Therefore, the moment he interacted with the Octopus he interfered with nature. There is nothing inherently wrong in interfering with nature, humans have done it for millennia and, depending on how you define nature, even nature interferes with nature. If the man cared about the Octopus like a pet, or even another human (both of which imho would be a bit excessive and raises ethical questions about humans and animals, differences and similarities, duty and and virtue) then he should have maybe done something. Therefore, since he already interfered, he could be decried as hypocritical. His 'interfering with nature' argument is a weak one, but that does not the argument for interfering is a strong one (which would depend on multifaceted moral opinions we make about humans, animals, nature and our role in it, along with a sense of duty, virtue, or calculation of value), just as being a hypocrite does not make one wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a morally grey area with no clear answer for a specific reason. Any action we take has consequences. The octopus lives to hunt the creatures it hunts and eats. Do we not save the octopus because it will kill other creatures down the line? Perhaps the shark is starving and that octopus was the food it needed to survive. Our actions kill the shark. One life for another, the same as a human being.

 

I would try to save the octopus, personally. The same as I save spiders on the store floor from getting crushed by people, knowing they'll kill later on. I save flies trapped in webs, knowing that perhaps I denied a spider the food it needed to live. I do this because inevitably, I know that both the spider and fly will die no matter what I do. In those moments, all I am is a second chance that will never happen again for this being's life. I do it because I believe that anything living has the right to be here, the same as any other life. Most animals are different to people in that they are innocent. They don't murder out of greed or jealousy or insanity. They kill to eat or defend themselves. They harm other life because it's their programming, not their choice. 

 

There is however one problem with interfering with nature. People don't know when to stop. They start trying to control everything because they think they can do it and regulate it better than a system that's been self regulating and repairing itself through five mass extinctions through millions of years. Let it be and it will restructure itself, repair itself, and mediate itself.

 

I save life because of this principle, because I know that after I'm gone, the spider will hunt and do it's thing, and the fly will do it's thing and maybe get itself caught in another web like a dumbass again. They'll move and act without me. I'm not a grand protector. Just a passing wind that happened to help.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the off chance I befriend an octopus I probably would try to save it from a shark out of loyalty.

 

This reminds me of the time I tried to save a moth from a spider web when I was like 10. I couldn't save it though because a black widow came out and probably would have bitten me if I kept trying to get the moth out of the web.

 

I agree humans are technically part of nature. I don't see anything special about humans that would make them exist outside of nature.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2020 at 12:31 AM, KrysLostInSpace said:

Who are you to cost the shark a meal? We are not apart of nature because we separate ourselves from it. What we do and live in is unnatural. 

How can something be unnatural if we are part of it? We just have a different level of intelligence.

Animals are known to protect other species.

If an octopus saved me from a shark, I wouldn't be complaining about how the octopus interfered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Alawyn-Aebt said:

pet so I would be wary of befriending it unless done so for scientific reasons.

Do we need ownership or scholarly cause to befriend something of another species?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2020 at 6:54 AM, FreeWalker said:

there's already interference.

OK, well if you put it like that. Anyone we interact with on a daily basis is interfering. I say hi to a stranger on a street, I am interfering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2020 at 2:19 AM, Skycaptain said:

Corona vaccine = interference in nature... 

Yes and no.  Debatable I suppose.

It's an interesting point because the vaccine is made from features and products of the Earth, thus nature related, but not completely nature because it can't be produced from a tree it must be modified and changed.

 

An in another appreciative add-on, we interfere in nature all the time. Why start caring now, when it comes to interspecies friendships?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gloomy said:

I don't see anything special about humans that would make them exist outside of nature.

I think humans tend to just climb onto their high horse and view their level of intelligence as a barrier with nature.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@AspieAlly613 Can we not befriend and protect without ownership?

A pet, is a creature whose safety a owner is responsible and cannot fend on its own.

A friend is a creature who you look out for whenever you can but you don't have full responsibility over them, they can live independently.

 

(the context of an animal other than human)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, GingerRose said:

OK, well if you put it like that. Anyone we interact with on a daily basis is interfering. I say hi to a stranger on a street, I am interfering.

Bingo. "To take part or intervene in an activity without invitation or necessity." Of course, necessity is such a weird word you could probably get away with saying greeting strangers is necessary.

 

In fairness my initial comment is a bit square/rectangle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a deep question.  I think that humans have different "contracts" with animals.  My feelings;

 

Wild animals - who we generally ignore and leave to fend for themselves.  We do not take sides in predator / prey.    Does the deer die, or the mountain lion cubs starve?   We choose not to make that choice.

 

Farm animals:  we protect and feed, but also consume.   Cows are probably the most successful large land animal  - because of a symbiotic relationship with humans.  We feed them, make sure the can breed - but we also eat them.  I'm not saying that we are being "nice", but the species survives because of our behavior.

 

Dogs:  We treat them as family members, and in return they are loyal, protecting us and or children when necessary.  

 

Cats:  WTF.   We give them everything they want and at best the show a little affection, or give us the mutilated corpse of a small animal when they are done torturing it.   They are some sort of evil psychic control creatures.    (I'm a cat owner of course and are cats are wonderful and adorable....)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GingerRose said:

How can something be unnatural if we are part of it? We just have a different level of intelligence.

Animals are known to protect other species.

If an octopus saved me from a shark, I wouldn't be complaining about how the octopus interfered.

No you wouldn't because you value your life. We are not part of the natural world in the sense that we remove ourselves from it. At least some of us. We are still part of nature considering we cannot escape it. You also did not answer my question. Who are you to cost a shark a meal? Sentiment is the only thing backing up your argument to save a creature. However if you are a mere observer, interfering could cost an animal it's life simply because of starvation. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary concern behind interference with nature is that you interrupt the food chain. We shouldn't be stopping a shark from feeding because of our concerns about the poor little octopus. No, its role in this scenario is to be eaten. If you stop that from happening you interrupt the natural order and create issues further down the chain. When the sharks are no longer around, what are the whales supposed to feed on?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, uhtred said:

Wild animals -

We hunt them.

We destroy their habitats without a second thought.

We are just as wild as they are but give them no solidarity.

And yet some of us protect them, make whole documentaries on them, create jobs surrounding them and their needs.

I think it's different people have different contracts with different animals

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, uhtred said:

Farm animals:

I would not call this a symbiotic relationship because the animal is not being helped to survive in this whole process. We are like parasitic wasps. Keeping the animal alive, until we can gain nutrition from killing it.

We have responsibility for them, but it's selfish, it's not about them, it's about our needs.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, uhtred said:

Dogs: 

Yes, the GML, genetically modified loyalty. Dogs were literally made for humans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, uhtred said:

Cats: 

The perfect example of an animal that should never have been domesticated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KrysLostInSpace said:

Who are you to cost a shark a meal?

I'm just another animal looking out for an animal I have befriended.

 

My friend and I are hiking, a mountain lion attempts to attack my friend. Who am I to cost the lion a meal?

 

 

The only difference is that we remove ourselves from nature because we think that our intelligence is far more than any other animal.

So the more intelligent are worth saving and interfering to save, than another species.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KrysLostInSpace said:

Sentiment is the only thing

Since when is sentiment a weak argument? Emotional bonds between species is pretty strong to me.

The power to connect with only bodily language and instinct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Moonman said:

the food chain

How do we play into the food chain? The top? Is the top not part of the chain? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Moonman said:

natural order

What does the natural order say about sentiment? Emotional connection? Does nature rule psychology and instinct out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...