Guild Wars 2

Doomslay.3504:

Your are taking that definition a bit too literally as it said in the page “in the broadest sense”, if we were to take it that literally then any physical thing could be considered as part of nature, including the things we currently consider the complete opposite of nature: the artificial

The difference, as pointed out in the wiki page, is that the artificial was manufactured by man. That’s really the only specification for something to not be natural. Even then it’s just a man made specification. Humans like to label things for the sake of labeling them. My argument is simply that there’s no reason to not consider naturally occuring objects like stars and planets as a part of the natural world.

I did not say only life was nature, in fact I was quoting you when you said Nature is where life exists, which like I said I completely agree. I’ll also add to it that life is part of nature, life cannot exist without nature and nature is not truly nature without life involved.

I think I see what your standard of nature is. You need life to be present. But life only isn’t present in the larger universe if you decide that Earth is somehow separate from it, which it’s not. We also don’t strictly know if there is life in other places in the universe or not, though statistically there probably is. I suppose my question to you is how far away from life does something have to be before it stops being nature to you?

Ehecatl.9172:

The difference, as pointed out in the wiki page, is that the artificial was manufactured by man. That’s really the only specification for something to not be natural. Even then it’s just a man made specification. Humans like to label things for the sake of labeling them. My argument is simply that there’s no reason to not consider naturally occuring objects like stars and planets as a part of the natural world.

Being natural=/= being part of nature, if you look up the definition of the word natural you’ll see it has many of them. one of which is “referiing to nature” another is “without artificial additives”
You are using the word natural with one definition (naturally occuring ie with no human influence) and this doesnt mean they are part of nature.
Not being artificial may mean it’s natural, but doesnt mean it’s part of nature.

Ehecatl.9172:

I think I see what your standard of nature is. You need life to be present. But life only isn’t present in the larger universe if you decide that Earth is somehow separate from it, which it’s not. We also don’t strictly know if there is life in other places in the universe or not, though statistically there probably is. I suppose my question to you is how far away from life does something have to be before it stops being nature to you?

Below is what I consider a near perfect definition of nature (from the wikipedia webpage):

Within the various uses of the word today, “nature” often refers to geology and wildlife. Nature can refer to the general realm of living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects – the way that particular types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth. It is often taken to mean the “natural environment” or wilderness–wild animals, rocks, forest, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention.

I understand quoting wikipedia doesnt give me much credibility but I currently dont have time to search for various sources on this.
To answer your question, and to quote myself from previous posts, life cannot exist without nature and life is an integral part of nature. If no sort of life can be detected in an environment (without human influence) then that environment is not natural (as in part of nature).

As a final note, since I feel this is slowly derailing I’ll say this, if Anet want to make their druid all about celestial and stuff that is fine, if that fits their definition of nature that is fine. It’s their game and they are welcome to do with it as they please.
However we were led to believe the Druid specc would be more centered around nature as in plants, and animals.
If they had made the druid more like that and focused less on the celestial part I’m pretty sure no one would be complaining about it, you wouldn’t see people opening threads about how druids aren’t natural enough cause they dont have enough celestial on their theme.