system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Isn't all human activity technically natural? Why do we classify it as something that seems out of this world?

The point I'm trying to imply is that humans were created by nature, and thereby humans using land to build homes is no different than a beaver building a dam, and a human building factories is no different than a bee creating a hive.

Why do we treat human activity like something so totally different, like land use, than animals have in the past?

By the way, is there a name for this viewpoint?
gpt
This is almost exactly what John Stuart Mill says in his wonderful essay *On Nature*. He first points out that the term *natural* often connotes something positive or desirable -- something that we by default ought to respect. But he sees a dilemma with the concept of *nature* and thus with the normative force typically ascribed to it.

First, *natural* could mean anything that occurs outside of human activity. On this view, beavers making dams, bees creating hives, and birds preparing nests are all *natural* whereas the full range of human creation is unnatural. If we accept this, then there can be nothing normative about the term *natural* because it simply describes everything that occurs without human agency.

On the second view, *natural* refers to every part of nature -- including humans. In this case, everything we do would be seen as natural: building skyscrapers, designing houses, engineering bridges, and the like. Here, again, the concept of the *natural* carries no normative force, since it includes *everything* humans could possibly do, and thus makes no room for "natural" and "unnatural" activities.

If you haven't read *On Nature*, definitely find it online if you can. It's great!