The Myth of Naturalism
In my past life, I've been a freelance consultant for health-related products - not for a very long time. The industry is just rife with bullcrap. It's attributable to two words: organic and natural. But let's just simplify it as naturalism. Here's the textbook definition:-
A philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
But what happens when most people use the word natural as the ONLY basis of their arguments? Essentially, if X is not natural, then it's not good. If Y is not organic, then it sucks. The problem isn't so much in expressed statements, but more to our gut feeling that unnatural stuff is no good at all.
Here are the usual suspects falling into the trap of being perceived as unnatural - chemicals, alteration of original construct, and just about anything man-made. Think about nuclear plants, societal structures, vaccines, GMO-stuff, medication, etc. Personally, I'm all for marijuana and stuff like that. But making an argument that it's good just because it's a natural plant does not cut it. Words can be both blinding and liberating at the same time.
Here's a little secret: anything man-made is as natural as the rest of the universe!
Whatever we do, believe or not, actually arises from natural properties and causes of our mind, body, and connection to the rest of the world. One example that I've made in the past - birds build nests, and humans build everything else - just as naturally. On that note, I suspect that this cognitive bias on our concept of naturalism can be traced back to religious inquisitions and persecutions in the past.
If we're being intellectually honest, man-made stuff doesn't mean that it's bad at all. In fact, many man-made stuff has helped humanity progressed through the ages. Sure, nothing's perfect, and all man-made stuff does not guarantee full functionality for everybody. There's a statistical distribution and like all man-made stuff, it can be used for both good and bad.
The point I'm trying to make here for myself and others reading this: be a contrarian even if you're already one. Try to overcome this little limitation, and exercise critical-thinking in part of assessing things, and not just on the basis of what is perceived to be natural or not. It's a myth.
I agree with the general thrust of your thesis here. But I definitely think that there are some man-made things which cannot be thought of as "natural" in any sense. Things like introducing the genes of one species into the embryo of a totally distinct species. Or grafting the head of a monkey on to the body of a goat.
I guess from some perspective you could call even those things "natural" since humans are a part of nature and it is humans producing such phenomena. But it somehow just doesn't sit well with me to think of such practices as natural.
It's a naturally occurring phenomenon that quite ****ed-up in nature.. that's what it is! Perhaps in this case, we can say that unnatural = statistical outliers.. ah words confuse me.
It doesn't even take words to confuse me. Signs will do it too. And don't even begin with me about humans!
Lol what kind of signs? Other than your recent post (looks like an icon for gathering point, btw!)
Yup, I was referring to my recent post. (Shamelessly trying to drum up some upvotes).
Naturalism is one of my pet hates. The criteria should be 'beneficial for life' or 'toxic'. Is it healthy, it may sound pragmatic but this is not philosophy but medicine, or does it diminish life. Amongst psychedelic users there is endless disagreements about this especially talking about LSD (synthetic) versus psilocybin and DMT. This belief shapes the 'set' of users and confirmation bias kicks in, a 'naturalist' is more likely to have a bad trip, in other words, if they are that fixated.
Cultivated versus wild is another facet of this dichotomy also. Not all cultivated things are good (depending on your metrics quantifying good) and not all wild things are good either - I don't recommend eating Castor Oil Beans for this reason. Ricin is one of the most toxic poisons by weight that we know of, but it is entirely 'natural' in this bean.
Organic/Biological is another facet of this as well. The real reason for using bio farming methods is not because it necessarily produces a healthier product for us, but because you can rule out inadvertent additions of toxic elements commonly found as contaminants in mineral fertilisers and chemicals like antibiotics in animal production, and in many cases, the biological methods make healthier organisms than chemical ones because of things missing from the more synthetic adjuncts to production.
What? Thanks for the info - never heard of this one before. For me I just tried them without expectations.
This is a great explanation, and I also agree that it's better framed just as 'beneficial for life' or 'toxic', although some things swing between these two states, accounting that some people have different biological makeups that'd process things differently.
Hybrids do occur in nature, and part of our DNA has been introduced by viruses. Nuclear fusion occurs in stars, and even nuclear fission has occurred naturally in dense uranium deposits.
Nice info there @edb! - what do you exactly mean by hybrids though?
Actually, there are different contextual meanings to apply for "natural".
I know what your trying to say, but you're not accurate and are "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" as a blind rejection of the word and it's meaning.
You're innate capacity to collect materials and use them without transmutation is a basic form of natural behavior. When you evolve the capacity to alter chemical compositions at will through technological developments that were further built from that basic abstraction in nature of simple collecting things to build basic survival habitats. Using fire is the start of the change. Leading to smelting of solid metals, and then technology and bioengineering, etc. There are serious dangers. People are weary of trusting the untested consequences to manipulation of food, creating chemicals that aren't (yes) naturally found in nature or in the quantity and concentration we make them.
So when you say:
That's a fallacy to polarize it to that ridiculous false extent. We diverge greatly from a basic natural capacity to collect from our environment and make minor modifications, to the great power of consciousness to create things that can alter and modify our reality to a greater degree. Nuclear bombs, bioweapons, bioegneering, technologies, war, there is a long list of dangerous things we can do with the power to tamper and create. These things are not naturally there. Just because we do actions in the world, doesn't mean that all our actions are simple "natural" lol. There is a specific meaning you are trying to erase and just generalize anything that exists as "natural".
There are some things that are natural good for us, something that are not, and then we also create things that are or are not not good for us. When we create something new, it diverges from that base norm of "natural". When a bird creates a simple nest from collecting material, the material didn't really change, it just aggregated. That is a simple power to create from consciousness in another animal. Human animals have much greater power to alter, affect, change, shape, mold and create into reality. When we craete things, the degree and magnitude of divergence from the base norm "natural" is much greater than other animals. We create much more than is unnatural in that sense.
Also, organic products can also have bad man made chemicals in them. It's a gimmick. Natural things can also have bad chemicals in them. People are indeed being deceived. But there is something about knowing the product ingredients, and seeing nothing was added except for what is known 100% to be safe without any problems in any doses.
This is the base norm of nature being followed more than not, as we are not tampering too create new compounds, etc as a new product. Compared to scientifically man-made chemicals that diverge from the base norm "natural", then it's more risky when it's not even a product of nature itself, but an extracted component that we artificially created, or extracted from something else to put in another food, and it has a weird name. If we knew with more certainty what was being added, and for what reason. And things shouldn't be added to food, nor people allow themselves top purchase it, without extensive testing to determine if a new man-made creation is actually beneficial or harmful, to have customers ignorantly purchase and consume.
Man! You just wrote a complete article! You are awesome!
LOL thanks.
I had to grab some sleep before responding lol!
There can certainly be reason to differentiate between reality/nature "out there" and "in here", but the point you make in this article is most definately valid and important.
Some people have decided that everything over which human beings had little controll must be better than where human beings had controll and made a choice. And some people want to suggest that when someone makes a choice with which they disagree, not only is it against nature (as could be true in theory) but also they all of a sudden leap to suggest that it is "not natural".
-They are both wrong, and not seldom do they carry this forward in trying to force this wrong on the rest of us.
Yes, I agree. I wrote this entirely based on what I thought would look cool for a title, and went for the punchline in the end lol. It's important to differentiate what you've said there :)
Thanks for the great response!
Thanks for bringing the topic up. And I agree with you. 'Myth' is a concept that our mass society 'naturalize' the ideology people create and try to make things as 'common' and so called 'true'. I don't doubt that the 'natural' or 'organic' stuff is better for our health, but also kind of like spreading this message over the society - 'having natural/organic food and supplements is the best for you' is the useful way for companies making big money as well. Ideology is a really big scary concept to control human's mind and how the society runs. And as you mention, critical thinking is extremely important for every human being nowadays. And people have to be aware how to choose 'more relaibale' information.
Yeah agree that its not to say that stuff that are said to be organic and natural arent good for us, just dont be blinded by wordplay :). And about ideology, I guess we share the same sentiment. Personally I read and write stuff regardless of ideologies (i dont really have one), whats more is if there are solutions to the problems we're tryna address.
One can make an intelligent arguement both ways, but when it comes down to it if there is a choice between a product that can be made by an individual growing a plant (cannabis/hemp) versus a factory making something with petroleum or needing a proprietary seed that requires pesticides......well the decision seems pretty clear for a lot of people; including myself. Since one can make anything petro can make with hemp, then we really need to say good bye to petro.
Good point @mranderson! There are somethings that one could do without all the fancy stuff!
It's an interesting thought. It is important to apply some critical thinking to the manipulative use of words by consumer marketing forces. There is a deliberate attempt being made to influence behavior by tapping into a primal instinct, for personal gain.
I kind of feel, like you have swung too far in the opposite direction. There is probably a middle ground which is more reasonable. When I try to envision balance, I like to draw upon archetypal images.
When I think of nature and the manipulation of nature, I like to draw a comparison of the feminine and the masculine. Mother nature exists as the feminine quality of our material existence, waiting to be seduced and manipulated by the conscious attention of Man (the masculine forceful manipulator). However in any scenario of manipulation, there is the element of balance and receptivity. If Man simply rapes Nature for his own hedonistic desire, then it is an affront to Nature, and usually results in a backlash. Environments become toxic and unlivable. The fruits of the other are not given up willingly. Nature does not love the abuser.
There is a quality of 'natural' that is true and real, but it's not the one that advertisers are selling us. That is a deception that we blindly concede to in our acceptance of a consumer society.
The connection with nature, is a connection with what we have come from. You express as much in your article when you say that it is all natural (man-made as well). I guess I would just say that the consciousness of man is a force that manipulates the natural and some of those manipulations are an affront to the nature.
Thanks for entertaining the thought @seablue :). I see that you're speaking of this thing called natural law, and a human-centric one at that. I guess the difference in stance is that I'm adopting the perspective that everything is neutral, indifferent, even the consciousness of man. But what remains is yeah, everything is natural (rendering the word natural meaningless in this case) and some of those natural action of man would bring about destruction to itself.
You make a good point. I guess things just start feeling less natural when they have undergone heavy processing.
But you know, just because something's a plant (in your example of marijuana), it does not automatically mean it's good for you, either. There's enough plants out there that can kill you when eaten!
To me, it's just about what's beneficial. As an example: sugar is bad, honey does basically the same thing. It'll make you fat when eating too much of it and there's the whole blood sugar thing. However, as opposed to processed sugar, atleat it has the aditional benefit of having some good properties aswell. So then it just becomes a thing of picking the lesser evil.
Lol that's very true.
Yup self-optimization it is. Just writing this little thing here to express my pet-peeve seeing arguments revolving around natural/unnatural .. and nothing else.
I agree, but I think we should distinguish between naturalism in the textbook definition, which is anti-religion, and the naturalism of marketeers and environmentalists that you describe here, which is anti-technology.
That's a great point - they're actually quite different in that sense. Thanks @edb :)
I don't think all man-made stuff are bad too but who am I to judge when we eat the saliva of a bird saying it's good. :-)
It's natural haha :D Speaking of bird's nest, it's been quite some time! I actually like it with liquified sugar :)
True! Technically there's no such thing as "artificial/ man made" vs "natural" .... it's all the same
Thanks! Great to know a doctor agrees with this definition.. :)