Idiocy, Compulsion, Gratitude, Nobility or Deception?

But unnatural is real and existing term. Whatever which is not in its natural form i. e as it exist in nature is unnatural. May it be extracted or mixed fruit juice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But this is a mutualistic relationship.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So is farming.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Humans are in our "natural" form. We are as nature "created" us. We can only do what nature allows us to do.

 

What's wrong with being unnatural?

 

It is not a scientifically-defined term. It is ambiguous - as we are seeing right here in this thread.
Thus, it is useless as a measure of anything.

You'll have to define what you mean by unnatural. Sometimes the definition is simply 'anything that is man-made', but that too is arbitrary.

 

Farming for killing should not be mutualistic relationship. Both group should benefit in it.

 

We're going to eat them.

The Kzinti are a cat-like race that eat humans. If you were a human on their planet, what benefit would you ask from the Kzinti that would make you feel you were in a mutual relationship with them?

What benefit could a sentient pig possibly ask of the pig-eating human that would make the pig feel it is in a mutually beneficial relationship?

 

It is not necessary that children always behave according to their parents who created them. We are also influenced by social environment.

 

Like human vs Robot.

 

Natural
"existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."
What is wrong in above dict. definition?

 

These are abnormal or exceptional examples. I quote snip from your last post:
" Sometimesthe definition is simply 'anything thatis man-made', but that too isarbitrary."

 

Because it doesn't help your case.
The definition uses 'human' as its criterion, so it's useless for you arguing how humans should change.

Your argument degenerates to simply: Humans should behave less human-like and should be more animal-like.

 

The pig example is not exceptional.

You argue that the pig should have a beneficial relationship with the farmer.
But the farmer is going to slaughter and eat the pig.
How could that possibly ever be a beneficial relationship for the pig?

 

Yes, behaving unnaturally should only be the property of humans. We just need to check, if it is created by nature or not.

 

Yes this or any other farming is not a mutualistic relationship. It is just one sided or parasitic relationship. Human's claim that they also provide benefits i. E breed, buy, nurse, protect those beings meant to kill can not be justified

 

What?

 

No we don't.

 

OK. Going back to your earlier statement for moment:

How does a pig benefit from being farmed?
Why would a farmer keep a pig that he's not going to eat?

 

So, humans should do nothing that is not natural?