Talk:Using 'natural' as a criterion for prioritisation

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)