Natural and Unnatural

the semantic distinction between natural and artificial is needed to separate what is human made from what occurs naturally. In our times artificial is taken one step further. It is interpreted as unnatural and thus separate from nature

A good example that summarizes what a lot of people would agree with is an interview of the italian poet ungaretti where he says that humans are against nature. in particular he says civilization is an overbearing act on nature. This is echoed by a lot of politic sentiment today. I must disagree completely. [1]

Humans are naturally occuring, and just like many other life forms we modify our environments. Manipulating our environment, even if in very sophisticated manners, is natural. This is what we do. It is contradictory to say that it is unnatural. we and our creations are part of nature. all that is physically possible is natural.

Technology is both human made and natural. Thinking the contrary has led to many people not only being scared of technology, but to despise it. Despite them using it and being a living contradiction.

Often technology is new, because it changes all the time. Humans are evolutionarily trained to be somewhat cautious of novelty because of its unpredictable risk. But a part of modern culture has taken it further, by consolidating it into fear. Since technology is evil because of some collateral damage it brings with its changes, change has become evil. [2]

Since all we do is technology, humans and progress have become the subject and enactors of such evil. Can you see the escalation? The escalation went from human made to unnaturally separate from nature to changes that are against nature to evil. Since there is no question about the fact that we are natural, assuming evil exists, does that mean some part of nature is evil?

I don’t think so. Evil is often associated with wrong in this context. It has to do with being on the right side of history. This means it is a politics and culture issue.

What is natural is acceptable, right and beneficial and what is unnatural is unacceptable, wrong and harmful. This has become a rethoric tool rather than a statement about the state of things. This kind of thinking has expanded in many areas.

In business. monopolies and dominance hierarchies are naturally occurring phenomena. Hierarchies are good organizational structures without which we would not be productive. Monopolies are the extremization of that structure and they are harmful and should be addressed. But that doesn’t mean that monopolies are not natural and that they shouldn’t be pursued. They are patterns that are widely visible in nature.

They should be pursued because of the progress they can bring and because it is the incentive of capitalism. Some people seem to think that who thinks every business should try to become a monopoly also thinks there should be no regulation. Regulation is necessary, but that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t pursue monopoly. Monopoly means you won the market, you were the best which means you brought the most progress in terms of quality and quantity. [3] And since monopolies represent a high form of progress before they are taken down they become evil.

Of course I agree with the fact that if there is no ergulation monopoly has bad incentives to exploit, raise prices and cause harm, and stifle competition which would kill the need for progress, leading to stagnation and misery for workers and consumers. But still this does not mean monopolies are bad. [4]

In drugs. Drugs, wether naturally occurring or engineered, have always been symbiotically used as technology for some purpose. Some have been used to mystical rituals, some to enhance cognition or physical performance, relieve pain, you name it.

That is because they cause a chemical change in the body that leads to actions and experiences. But since those same actions and experiences can be achieved inernally without external substances, then they follow the arch of unnatural and against nature. But why does the source of the chemical change matter? it is different paths, but still nature

I could make similar arguments also about topics like genetically or neurally enhancing humans, augmenting lifespan, controlling gestation artificially, whatever your favorite is. In general eugenics unfortunately has a bad reputation because of its association with the nazis and their horrible experiments. But why is it bad to want to improve ourselves and do a lot of good for others? I think it has to do with the same rethoric of unnatural > evil.

it is a general anxiety. People seem to strongly underestimate the adaptation capabilities of both humans and life in general. And they seem to ignore the fact that everything goes in cycles and extinction and things breaking are part of the process. some people seem to see that as a kind of injustice, and shortsightedly point it to uhmans. But they should be looking at nature, that is the only cause of injustice.

In the history of the world many phenomena have made entire species extinct. New ones have sprouted overtime. So is it bad that the old ones are not here anymore?

Nature has no concepts of good and bad, right and wrong and just and injust. It just is and it changes all the time. Humans do have those concepts.

In the end I think it has to do with power. What differentiates us from other life forms is our power over the environment. That power grows both in the ability to do good, as well as the ability to do bad. We should be cautious about our power. But that doesn’t mean we should negate ourselves of it. It is what makes us who we are.

Notes

[1] I want to clarify that my disagreement with the fact that we are against nature does not mean that I am not infavor of diminishing animal suffering and pollution if it comes to that.

[2] This is how people have become scared of progress. No wonder they then prefer the stagnation of progress that would come from a system like communism. It feels safer, other than feeling "morally superior", giving them the opportunity to virtue signal they are on the right side.

[3] excluding rockefellian predatory practices which are indicative not of progress but of dominance ability.

[4] There are a lot of other related topics like inequality but it would get redundant. I’ll just say here that inequality is also natural.