At my job, I am fortunate enough to get a chance to have a cigarette break whenever I want. On these breaks, I have been doing a lot of thinking about what "man-made" means. The topic came up originally when some friends and I were having a discussion, "What defines a muscle car?" The only things we could agree upon were: it must be rear wheel drive, have dual exhaust, the mufflers must not be prominent (or preferably, not visible at all), and no company has made a muscle car since the early 70's (quite possibly since the late 60's).
So I was thinking about this, and my mind began to wander about the nature of "man-made." The question I pose is: If you were an alien visiting Earth, how would you recognize what was created by sentient beings (humans) and what wasn't? Note that this is related to the "Blind Watchmaker" proof/disproof of God.
At first I thought that complexity was the key. But humans often make items that are not complex (statues, chairs, etc.). In addition, nature often makes quite complex items (such as humans). Complexity is not what we are looking for.
My next idea was the appearance of rational design. Aristotle included purpose as one of the properties of objects in his metaphysics system. But often, a man-made object has no rational design other what is easy or convenient to create (doodles written in notebooks during boring meetings, for example). And nature has created objects whit what appear to have quite a rational design (living objects are a good example, once again).
Mixture of materials was another guess, but an obvious dead end. Rocks are often combinations of many materials, and a desk might solely be made of wood.
At this point, I began polling my friends. All of them were pretty stumped. Each theory we presently was a variation on one of the above themes, and easily defeated.
So what is the definition of "man-made?" Something made by a person. But we simply cannot create a method for identifying what it truly is.
However, this brings up a third question: what does it matter? I think it is fair to assume that humans are "natural." Even if a God or some other divine force created us, we would be just as natural as trees, rocks, rivers, and so forth. When a tree creates a fruit that becomes another tree, we call it natural. When a river makes a canyon, it is natural. When a rabbit gives birth to new rabbits, it is natural. We do not call our own children "man-made" simply because they are created by humans. This train of logic makes an awful lot of sense to me. We are natural; therefore, what we create is natural by extension.
But by extension, that would mean that what our creations make is natural. Is a car that rolls off of the automated assembly line natural? We wouldn't think so. But now it appears that this is the case. What our children create is natural. From a different angle: let us pretend there is a garden in my yard. I made it myself (bought the seeds at the store, laid down fertilizer [organic as well as synthetic], built the planter boxes, tilled the soil with a machine, etc.). A human made the garden. Man-made. We would call the produce from this garden "natural." Why is it that the creations of some of our creations are natural, while others are man-made?
I have always believed that there is a good chance that something that cannot be defined is either simply a "synonym" for something else, or does not exist at all. But we are so free with the words "man-made." Why do we have such a hard time understanding an idea that we bandy about so easily? This opens the doors to many other questions regarding linguistics.
And, in regards to my third question, here is my view: if we find that "man-made" items are universally natural, the ramifications are astounding. How can we have ethics, or even environmental protection laws if it is deemed that everything we do or create is natural? But the opposite view implicates that we are simply foreigners on our own planet, and that we do not "belong" on Earth (although I am convinced that a lot of the people I encounter really are aliens anyway).
Of course, there is the middle ground. But handling everything we encounter on a case-by-case basis can quickly become tedious and prone to error. And the identification is tricky. Is a garden created 200 years ago that has been allowed to run wild still "man-made?" Case-by-case is hardly satisfying, nor is it accurate. So again, what does it matter? I propose that we end distinctions between natural and man-made.
I have loved working with computers since I was a kid. I specialized in software development, but I also do a lot of systems administration and some network engineering. Currently, my development interests are in C#, parallel processing, and exploring business usage of dynamic and functional languages. In addition to my day job, I write for TechRepublic, primarily in the "Programming and Development" area, and ForMortals. I am currently (when time permits) working on a book that aims to teach new developers everything about how to write software, other than how to program in and of itself. In addition, I do a bit of software development under the banner of my own company, Titanium Crowbar Industries
I love learning about history and philosophy (I doubled majored in those subjects in college) as well. The essays on this site regarding those topics were all written by me in college and high school. I also am extremely interested in physical fitness, and devote a substantial amount of my time to weight lifting. I am currently focusing on lifting heavy weights and I have participated in a few powerlifting meets. Currently, my non-technical readings have focused on various religious ideas and fitness. I am a big fan of Phillip K. Dick and Frank Herbert, and both of those authors have shaped my worldview greatly.
You can also find me on Facebook.