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?