Is a House the Same As a Lake?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your question made little sense

Both a house and a lake are environments

I don't really understand why this is so controversial

Yeah, but you could learn to do the foowing:
For everything, something, something else and/or nothing as same, similar and/or different in one, some, all, no senses how does that applies to lakes and houses,
And not just one sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The whole universe could be considered a home to everything in it, by that token.
A house is a discrete, dwelling unit.

No, that is a lake, because fish live in it. So they are the same.

 

[Valjean]

I don't really understand why this is so controversial

Perhaps it's inspired by the claim that humans are fish.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Your question made little sense

This was the question...

Can you live in your house without obtaining food from an external source?

Please let me know which part of it you are struggling to make sense of, and I'll see what I can do to help you better make sense of it.

 

[Stevicus]

No, the farm is external to the house.

The farmhouse is a part of a farm. A farm isn't a part of a farmhouse. I would consider the farm to be an external source.

I guess it depends on how one defines "external" or "part of." The farm is the backyard and still part of the same property.

 

[Stevicus]

You can't drink from a lake,

Why can't you drink from a lake?

 

[Valjean]

No, that is a lake, because fish live in it. So they are the same.

Perhaps the lake is an apartment block, or town. People live in them, too.

Is a lake a dwelling unit?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I guess it depends on how one defines "external" or "part of." The farm is the backyard and still part of the same property.

The land surrounding the lake can be on the same property as well, but it is not the lake. It is external to the lake.

 

[rocala]

I guess it depends on how one defines "external" or "part of." The farm is the backyard and still part of the same property.

Which is not a definition of a house.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I guess it depends on how one defines "external" or "part of." The farm is the backyard and still part of the same property.

Not always. You can have a piece of land without a farmhouse and the farnhouse somewhere else. Then we end in what is the same property, but in Denmark as least you can own land without it having a house, so I would consider that property in some sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why can't you drink from a lake?

I was being backwards and absurd.

 

[Stevicus]

The land surrounding the lake can be on the same property as well, but it is not the lake. It is external to the lake.

"External," perhaps, but not separate and disconnected. The land is obviously a necessary requirement to make a lake. Otherwise, it would just be a body of water floating in mid-air.

I'm not sure where this discussion is going or what prompted it, but I suppose a follow-up question might be is if man, being a part of nature, makes something from nature or alters in some way, is it "natural"? Obviously, a house and a lake (or a farm) are not the same things, but are they all part of a "natural" ecosystem? Is that the question being asked here?

 

[Quintessence]

Tons of differences, from an ecological standpoint but the jyst of it:

• A house is a constructed, artificial ecosystem that is specifically designed to keep nature out and away; it is purposefully created to refuse to integrate with the systems and flows of nature and as a consequence is not sustainable and in defiance of the landscape around itself (at least if we are talking a typical home design in the Untied States).
  
  • Humans believe a house is "theirs" and will kill and murder anything living there that they believe does not "belong"; it serves only one species and is hostile to all others
  • A house is an energy and resource vortex; it takes and takes and takes while giving very little if anything back in return in service to the greater-than-human world
  • A house is artificed - it is full of square shapes and forms, strange angles and colors, chimeric substances and materials that would never exist as they do in the arrangement they do without being constructed by a human
• A lake is an emergent natural ecosystem that is fully integrated with the landscape around itself; it exists where it does and it does what it does because it must do given the greater landscape around itself (at least if we're talking about a non-artificial lake).
  
  • Lakes are extremely important products and participants in the Water Cycle (Water cycle - Wikipedia) without which terrestrial life on this planet simply would not exist; as such lakes give and take in ways houses absolutely do not.
  • Lakes are home to innumerable aquatic, amphibious, and terrestrial organisms; life on this planet just in general does not exist without lakes and other bodies of freshwater. It does not "belong" to any one single species, much less humans.
  • Lakes are complex systems that change over time in response to their environment. They do not resist these changes, but are an expression of the flows of the landscape.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"External," perhaps, but not separate and disconnected. The land is obviously a necessary requirement to make a lake. Otherwise, it would just be a body of water floating in mid-air.

I'm not sure where this discussion is going or what prompted it, but I suppose a follow-up question might be is if man, being a part of nature, makes something from nature or alters in some way, is it "natural"? Obviously, a house and a lake (or a farm) are not the same things, but are they all part of a "natural" ecosystem? Is that the question being asked here?

Well, it depends. The standard test is to ask what would be left without humans around. That which is left, is natural in one sense. That which requires humans is in part natural but also social and cultural.

 

[Eddi]

Can you live in your house without obtaining food from an external source?

Creatures in a lake would all die if their lake was isolated from the rest of the eco-system

Your premise seems to be that lakes are self-contained, or self-sufficient

They aren't

Even if the animals don't have to leave it to get their food

 

[rocala]

Well, it depends. The standard test is to ask what would be left without humans around. That which is left, is natural in one sense. That which requires humans is in part natural but also social and cultural.

I agree. On a more simple level I would say that ploughing, milking and mucking out the pigsty have never been classed as housework.

 

[Stevicus]

Well, it depends. The standard test is to ask what would be left without humans around. That which is left, is natural in one sense. That which requires humans is in part natural but also social and cultural.

Many animals build nests or make slight alterations to nature to make their homes, but that is considered "part of nature," not against it. Why can't humans be given the same consideration? We're animals, too. We're a part of nature.

 

[Valjean]

Tons of differences, from an ecological standpoint but the jyst of it:

• A house is a constructed, artificial ecosystem that is specifically designed to keep nature out and away; it is purposefully created to refuse to integrate with the systems and flows of nature and as a consequence is not sustainable and in defiance of the landscape around itself (at least if we are talking a typical home design in the Untied States).
  
  • Humans believe a house is "theirs" and will kill and murder anything living there that they believe does not "belong"; it serves only one species and is hostile to all others
  • A house is an energy and resource vortex; it takes and takes and takes while giving very little if anything back in return in service to the greater-than-human world
  • A house is artificed - it is full of square shapes and forms, strange angles and colors, chimeric substances and materials that would never exist as they do in the arrangement they do without being constructed by a human
• A lake is an emergent natural ecosystem that is fully integrated with the landscape around itself; it exists where it does and it does what it does because it must do given the greater landscape around itself (at least if we're talking about a non-artificial lake).
  
  • Lakes are extremely important products and participants in the Water Cycle (Water cycle - Wikipedia) without which terrestrial life on this planet simply would not exist; as such lakes give and take in ways houses absolutely do not.
  • Lakes are home to innumerable aquatic, amphibious, and terrestrial organisms; life on this planet just in general does not exist without lakes and other bodies of freshwater. It does not "belong" to any one single species, much less humans.
  • Lakes are complex systems that change over time in response to their environment. They do not resist these changes, but are an expression of the flows of the landscape.

Is a hermit crab's shell a house, or a shattered coconut shell with a resident octopus? Neither is artificial, or constructed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Many animals build nests or make slight alterations to nature to make their homes, but that is considered "part of nature," not against it. Why can't humans be given the same consideration? We're animals, too. We're a part of nature.

Well, yes. It is not natural to claim we are not a part of nature, but we do have a set of features and behaviours that set us a part in some sense from other animals. But yes, it is a matter of degree.

 

[Quintessence]

Is a hermit crab's shell a house, or a shattered coconut shell with a resident octopus? Neither is artificial, or constructed.

Not in the sense that I described, no - I was speaking specifically to the typical American home construction; residential property. The term "house" like all words is obviously polysemic and can carry a broader meaning, though.