What is nature?

As we're in the season of moral debate and insightful philosophy, here's a question for you: What is nature?

I photographed this extensive colony of homo sapiens as they swarmed over their territory, referred to as Edinburgh. During the day the adult males of this social species, hunt and forage whilst the females perform other group-serving activities as well as tending to the young. Being primarily a diurnal species, nightfall sees homo sapiens returning to their network of burrows to feed and engage in social interaction. This can range from mutual grooming to play-fighting amongst sub-adult males, some of which are notoriously dangerous. The peak of copulation takes place in the winter months and following a 9-month gestation, usually a single infant is born which is dependent on its parents for the first 25 years of its life!

If such a caption had accompanied an image of chimpanzees, then of course this would be 'nature'. But despite sharing an almost identical genetic make-up, we're somehow not part of nature but commentators upon it. So, is this a 'wildlife image'? And if not, why not?

Just for the record, none of the subjects were captive, nothing has been cloned and I witnessed no inappropriate photographer behaviour. I did however, spend a long time waiting for the wind to subside which is why my thought processes drifted accordingly!!

Peter Cairns

www.northshots.com

PMSL.....

I did however, spend a long time waiting for the wind to subside

Be warned - never share a hide with this man

I used to think like this Pete, when I was a mind-controlled scientist. All organisms including man are a function of their DNA, and nothing more. All life on earth and even the universe is disenchanted, robotic and instinct (or mathematically) driven.

Since science believes it can explain so much though, why are humans the least understood of earth's inhabitants? Are we "just" machines that incidentally has free-will, a purpose and consciousness? It's a clever machine if we are!

Science, politics and psychologists have played down our potential to the grave extent we give our lives and beliefs over to dictators and institutions. We are controlled therefore not just by out individual DNA on a micro scale, but more so by the ruling elite's DNA on a macro scale.

The earth would be better if we woke up and realised our true potentiality to create not just a harmonious society with each other but the earth as well. So in conclusion, we act as nature only in so much that we have given up our minds to those who feed us all the bullshit.

Dave
Forest of Dean

I have read that in the (traditional, probably stereotyped) Japanese view of nature, humans are very much a central part, and not separate, as we see ourselves in Europe. But also that humans have a role as the highest form of nature, and that humans shaping nature is our right, and not inherently bad, as is perceived by some conservationists here.

When I spend time watching wildlife and exploring 'natural' landscapes, I don't want to see the influence of humans (or what I perceive is the influence of humans)- of course, very few places in the UK are untouched by us. But from a biological perspective, I don't see us any difference from other animals.

RAOTFLMAO

Superb Pete

In terms of nature and what is natural I think that we are all 'natural' in the sense we are part of nature, however as a race we all seem to be hell bent on destroying our habitat whereas the rest of the species on this planet seem to live somewhat in harmony with it.. Which of us has got it right might be another question..?

Nice pic by the way.. shows our manipulated habitat very well with the only 'semi-natural' parts being in the upper 3rd of the image..

Brett

Hi Pete

Every living thing has evolved over millions of years to survive and thrive in it's surroundings and man is no different - so the answer to your question is 'yes' this is nature. However today we choose not to call anything that has been manipulated by man natural!

David

Just thought - if only ants could use a Nikon Coolpix !
JR

In my view - not nature I'm afraid.

We have domesticated ourselves. I read that humans are no longer evolving. The human species is no longer controlled by the natural laws such as natural selection. We have everything we need, and no longer have to fight for it, forage for it, or fear predation. We have taken over the earth and we pretend that we own it. We pay vast amounts of money to OWN patches of land that aren't really ours to own. We are no longer part of nature, we have separated ourselves from it. It would do the earth good if we remembered that we operate as part of it and the things we do affect it.

From a photography point of view, if one species takes a photo of his own species, that is not a nature photograph. That is portraiture, social photography, or reportage. When one species takes a photo of a different species, that is nature photography. In taking a photo of a different species, the photographer celebrates and highlights our differences, shows something unknown to the audience, and tries to understand what it's like to be that species that it so different to us.

Your photo, well that's a rather nice cityscape.

Interesting post Pete

For 'Joe the plumber' the question possibly never arises as to his place in the natural order of things. This lack of self-perception does not mean he is not a product of nature. Regardless of how far removed we've become from 'nature' our true natural heritage is still expressed - take the adrenaline rush caused by our 'flight or fight' response for example. This gives me hope that there is still a chance to influence perception about the value of the natural world and our responsibility to it.

At species level we are the keystone example of Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' theory - we've physically out competed everything and reign supreme. Trouble is our intellect hasn't developed at the same pace and we've not evolved the sense of responsibility befitting of our position. Do I photograph nature because I want to show my supremacy over it? No, I prefer to believe I'm driven by a primeval respect for my evolutionary heritage and I want to reawaken that in others.

In answer to your question, no its not a 'wildlife' image but it is an image from nature - human nature.

Cheer,
Chris

What is nature?

That which is not, nor incorporates anything, synthetic.

The photograph above fails this test on a multitude of levels.

T

Synthetic as in synthesis Tom? Combination by natural process. Anything made by "natural" man is therefore a "natural" product....
If you mean something which does not form by nature alone (edit: I meant manmade), then we must stop showing photos of domestic animals, grass, GM crops, almost any UK landscape, dolly the sheep and photos of animals taken at set-ups or in glass tanks.

Edit: Pete's photo is justified on here as most landscape photos are.

Dave

Very amusing, but essentially a semantic rather than philosophical debate.

I would take issue with a couple of Dawn’s remarks though:

“The human species is no longer controlled by the natural laws such as natural selection. We have everything we need, and no longer have to fight for it, forage for it, or fear predation…”

This may or may not be true in London and Manchester but it is far from true for many people elsewhere in the world. There are still millions who rely on wild places to provide all or some of their needs, sometimes in a sustainable way but often, and increasingly, not. There are also millions who’s natural and acquired immunity to disease rather than modern medicine keeps them alive.

The second point relates to the photography argument:

“From a photography point of view, if one species takes a photo of his own species, that is not a nature photograph. That is portraiture, social photography, or reportage. When one species takes a photo of a different species, that is nature photography…”

So into which genre does a photograph that depicts both fall? And why do we need to make these boundaries anyway? This separation between what is regarded as pure nature photography and reportage devalues photography as a conservation tool. The countless beautiful images we see (still and moving) of wildlife and wilderness present a distorted view and have clearly achieved little. Perhaps if more people were presented with more realistic and honest imagery they would be motivated to change things. For example I’m thinking here of the photos of gorillas by Brent Stirton who might normally be thought of as a reportage rather than a wildlife photographer.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/07/virunga/stirton-photography

Sorry if I went off topic a bit

Cheers

Terry

Dave,

I was rthinking more along the lines of your second sentence i.e. combination by un-natural processes, i.e not naturally occuring in nature.

I take the point fully about the some landscapes.

Just my views!!

Yes, I'll agree that there are many people in the world who still rely on and live in nature. But in the developed world, humans are not governed by natural selection. We cure our diseases and live long enough to pass on our faulty genes, many are even helped to do so. Again avoiding natural selection. If we could all learn our lessons and live in harmony with nature, only taking what we need and doing so in a way that is sustainable - then I'll say humans in the developed world are natural.

Regarding photography - yes we do need those boundaries, otherwise we could display any photography on this forum. I seem to remember an image of stars over a pier being slated on this forum because it it wasn't natural enough. There's the boundary on here. Just because a photo is catergorised as one thing doesn't mean it can't be another in a different context.

I definately disagree that this devalues photography as a tool in conservation. The photograph can be used in a variety of ways that the photographer chooses. And variety of photography genres is vital in conservation - showing not just wildlife, but reporting on people who conserve it, and issues that threaten it.

*Gets off soapbox*

Synthetic as in synthesis Tom?

You lost me on extensive

Danny

Doh, is that the only challenge I get? Must try harder to provoke a reaction!

Synthetic is often taken to be the adjective (to be synthetic) of the noun synthesis.

This debate is coming to a flop of a conclusion as always. Shame cos there's so much more to say about humans and their "natural" place on earth, the truth about which could even save the earth. Even quantum physicists are now accepting the long held "belief" that humans are a product of an earthly material existence, and also an unearthly consciousness-made-incarnate existence (the Hadron collider experiments hope to prove this). It is most likely a "fact" now that humans are not the natural end-member of DNA evolution as Dawn and most people would believe. We may be able alter out DNA at will! There is believed to be evolving a new human sub-species some are calling "Homo sapiens spiritus".

We are both individuals (ego level) and the same person (consciousness level) at the same time! We can therefore commincate via thought with our leaders, and the earth itself, via this consciousness channel if only a critical mass of thought could be formed by us all rather than the divide-and-rule propaganda most seem to unthinkingly opt into in one way or another.

From most mind-controlled scientists (and the idiots who prefer to "piss their sides" rather than evolve) I will get the usual mocking, but if this is something others want to learn more about you could listen to Sky Channel 200 for a day or so and your perceptions of what being human is may change. As always, the truth is in plain sight.

So, the question of whether man is "earthly" in nature, the answer from my research would be a provisional NO I'm happy to point people to the evidence by email if you wish (go to my web for contact details).

"Those who think they know everything know the least, those with doubt know the most"

Dave (the atheist, and apologies for appearing serious but I'm not, I actually think life is a cosmic joke and I often RAOTFLMAO).
www.djsphotography.co.uk

Methinks you're a fan of the X-Files David.

BTW, don't you know that the earth is flat, the sun goes round the earth and that the stars are firmly fixed in the Firmament. Galilleo, Copernicus et al are absolutely all part of a great scientific conspiracy to make us all think that the earth is round and that billions of dollars can be spent on building telescopes and sending men into 'Space - the Final Frontier. It's all really a TV studio in a Hangar (17) somewhere in the desert in the USA.

Now, I'm just off to check my stock of cheese, Wallace & Grommit have promised to bring me a new stock of Wenslydale and some green cheese back from their Grand Day Out.

Now,I think you really need so fresh air, so I'd suggest that a few hours spent outside photographing some bug, mammal or bird would do everyone a bit of good. Leave the cityscapes to the human photographers rather than the wildlife photographers (although Fri/Sat night in most urban areas shows enough human 'wildlife').

Have a nice weekend folks

BTW, why don't we leave the arguments over nature/human/natural/unatural etc to the Philosophers - i.e. those who's heads have evolved to stand the aching... .

One World Humanity Dancing Through The Natural Landscape, enjoy.....

http://vimeo.com/1211060

Warmth and Light,
Dave

Peter, you certainly went great lengths to create a natural looking setup. Even better, the bait is not visible in the picture. You should put these techniques on your next DVD