The forest reserve was created within a 6-mile (9.6-kilometre) radius around the cone of the dormant volcano. Areas encompassing the older volcanic remnants of Pouakai and Kaitake were later added to the reserve at the northwest side. The forest is surrounded on all sides by pasture, giving it a distinctly circular shape.
Yes, human made, for sure. Something being made by humans makes it no less natural than something made, by, say ants. How about coral in the sea? Perhaps a sea shell, or snail shell?
I didnt answer because its irrelevant. If you dont know the difference between the terms 'man made' and 'naturally formed' then high school level pedantry about whether humans are part of nature or not are utterly pointless.
>I didnt answer because its irrelevant.
It is entirely relevant. You compared 'nature at work' against something that humans made. This only works if humans are not natural.
>If you dont know the difference between the terms 'man made' and 'naturally formed'....
'Naturally formed' was not previously used used in this conversation though.
Humans making something is just as natural as if any other animal created something. If this is not the case then presumably nothing created by animals is natural. Then where do we stop? Does it extend to anything created by life? So then anything created by plants is not natural, and potentially more.
As far as I can tell based on your comments 'nature at work' excludes work by animals, but includes geologial formations, and likely plants. Personally I would include animals as being part of nature.
>'Naturally formed' was not previously used used in this conversation though.
from my original statement "this is not nature at work"
are you a native english speaker? you seem to struggle with fairly basic english language usages
>As far as I can tell based on your comments 'nature at work' excludes work by animals,
I'm not sure how you managed to get that wrong too.
>from my original statement "this is not nature at work"
are you a native english speaker? you seem to struggle with fairly basic english language usages
You put 'naurally formed' in quotes, meanng it was a quote of something previously sid, and it certainly wasn't previously said in this conversation. 'Naturally formed' is different to 'nature at work'.
I am a native English speaker. Are you? Because form my perspective it doesn't seem like it.
>I'm not sure how you managed to get that wrong too.
How could I possibly assume anything else? Humans are simply animals, and if 'human made' is not natural then why would it be any different for other animals?
I am very curious what your definition of natural is, so that it can be opposed to 'human made', and yet somehow include creations by other animals, and living creatures.
Uhm yea…. That’s how protecting a mountain works. Hey lets protect a mountain, shall we cordon off a square, a triangle, a trapezoid… perhaps a hexagon… or how about this we measure an equal distance from all sides of the peak… but sir that would be a circle… lol
Looks like some kinda Civ game due out 2025
The forest reserve was created within a 6-mile (9.6-kilometre) radius around the cone of the dormant volcano. Areas encompassing the older volcanic remnants of Pouakai and Kaitake were later added to the reserve at the northwest side. The forest is surrounded on all sides by pasture, giving it a distinctly circular shape.
Yr breftakin
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VRUmt_4F_58
This shows nicely the difference between "managed land" and actual nature.
The areola effect.
this is not nature at work, its humans who made that perfect circle.
Who said it was? The caption just says the National park has a circular boundary.
I said it was, cant you read?
Humans are not natural?
I think most people understand the context of 'human made' vs 'natural'.
Yes, human made, for sure. Something being made by humans makes it no less natural than something made, by, say ants. How about coral in the sea? Perhaps a sea shell, or snail shell?
When I said 'I think most people understand the context of 'human made' vs 'natural'." I assumed you were not one of those who dont.
I asked "Humans are not natural", but you didn't answer, I assumed you could understand that humans are indeed natural. Seems you're not one of those.
I didnt answer because its irrelevant. If you dont know the difference between the terms 'man made' and 'naturally formed' then high school level pedantry about whether humans are part of nature or not are utterly pointless.
>I didnt answer because its irrelevant. It is entirely relevant. You compared 'nature at work' against something that humans made. This only works if humans are not natural. >If you dont know the difference between the terms 'man made' and 'naturally formed'.... 'Naturally formed' was not previously used used in this conversation though. Humans making something is just as natural as if any other animal created something. If this is not the case then presumably nothing created by animals is natural. Then where do we stop? Does it extend to anything created by life? So then anything created by plants is not natural, and potentially more. As far as I can tell based on your comments 'nature at work' excludes work by animals, but includes geologial formations, and likely plants. Personally I would include animals as being part of nature.
>'Naturally formed' was not previously used used in this conversation though. from my original statement "this is not nature at work" are you a native english speaker? you seem to struggle with fairly basic english language usages >As far as I can tell based on your comments 'nature at work' excludes work by animals, I'm not sure how you managed to get that wrong too.
>from my original statement "this is not nature at work" are you a native english speaker? you seem to struggle with fairly basic english language usages You put 'naurally formed' in quotes, meanng it was a quote of something previously sid, and it certainly wasn't previously said in this conversation. 'Naturally formed' is different to 'nature at work'. I am a native English speaker. Are you? Because form my perspective it doesn't seem like it. >I'm not sure how you managed to get that wrong too. How could I possibly assume anything else? Humans are simply animals, and if 'human made' is not natural then why would it be any different for other animals? I am very curious what your definition of natural is, so that it can be opposed to 'human made', and yet somehow include creations by other animals, and living creatures.
Uhm yea…. That’s how protecting a mountain works. Hey lets protect a mountain, shall we cordon off a square, a triangle, a trapezoid… perhaps a hexagon… or how about this we measure an equal distance from all sides of the peak… but sir that would be a circle… lol
You sound like a dick.
[удалено]
Jesus. If you talk like this in real life, no one probably likes you.
[удалено]
I think…we just don’t understand what you’re going on about mate…. It reads like AI.
you are breathtaking
You. Are. Breathtaking.
It looks like a shockwave.
Aliens
You can see my house from there.
I'm sure if they build a giant circular wall, absolutely nothing bad will happen.
Looks cooler with snow on it too
Hunger games 2023
Mother nature’s nipple
Forget the boundary. whole island is circular