Are there any books about how the distinction between nature

No because nobody that stupid is smart enough to write a book

>>9433663
How is this stupid? Look at this definition of nature:
"the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
"the breathtaking beauty of nature"

Don't you agree that it's arbitrary to exclude humans and human creations from nature since it includes animals? Why our creations separate from nature but a beaver dam or a beehive aren't? It's totally arbitrary.

>>9433674
>"the breathtaking beauty of nature"
didn't mean to include this part. it was just them using the word in a sentence

>>9433662
yo stfu

File: 1477259972883.jpg (206KB, 600x495px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 600x495px

>>9433674
How is it arbitrary? Humans really are special.

>>9433739
even if we were special that doesn't mean we can't be a part of nature. that seems clear enough to people when they speak of the "natural world" but when speaking of "nature" humans are excluded for some reason

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebEX628AHsg

>>9433745
The difference rests in what humans do and that the rest of the natural world does:
Nonsentient animals and plants adapt to their surroundings in order to survive.
Humans adapt the surroundings to fit their needs.

Essentially our survival is much less dependant on out surroundings than the rest of the natural world. Not that there isn't some dependency, but we won't die out immediately if it doesn't rain this Winter.