> The difference is qualitative, not quantitative. No other > animal creates tools to create tools. And the difference > between a spider's web or a beaver's dam on the one hand and > the Hoover dam on the other is significant. That's an interesting distinction to make, but it's not really any different than saying that "dinosaurs were the only animals in the eco-system that grew to such massive size". It's simply the trait that makes us the dominant species. > Hmmm. That's rather interesting, given that including us and all our > works effectively prevents us from discussing nature. As long as you define nature to mean "wild" parts of the planet then I suppose that's true. I'll certainly grant that definition works fine for certain discussions. Too many people think it's the only definition available which is why I get a little wordy on the subject. *heh* The world itself is a huge system and pretending that we can somehow model the system without including ourselves in the model is simply wrong, IMO. "Nature" is the result of all of the creatures and plants living their lives and doing their things. That includes us. > But if we actually want to communicate > with each other, it becomes necessary to make that distinction. > Similarly, the more we wish to consciously and deliberately shape our > environment, the more important it is keep in mind that which is > *natural* in our world--ie, what the world has given Man as > material to > work with, and what we can *create* with our minds, our tools, and our > will. That's actually a pretty elegant definition of what most people think of as "nature". I like it. I just wish that there was another word to describe Nature, as in the world that includes both "man" and "nature".