What do you think “natural” means?

Author: cristo71

Posts

Total: 35
Topic's author
#1
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
It seems to me that a lot of people don’t really know what “natural” means. “Uh, it means occurring in nature?” or guesses along those (tautological) lines. So, then, is a beaver dam natural?
“Yes, I think.”
Honey?
“Sure.”
An automobile?
“No!”
Why not?
“Because Man makes cars!”
Aren’t we humans… also a part of nature?
“Uh…”
How about… uranium?
“Uh…”

So many products these days claim to be “100% natural.” Why is that necessarily good? Oil is natural, and we tend to see it as toxic and damaging to nature, rather than “natural” in the good sense, rather than being “in harmony with nature.” Yes, I know that we humans go out of our way to dig it from deep in the earth— same with uranium.

My point here being:  “natural” is not a very useful or informative descriptor. It is often misunderstood and misleading. I believe it is merely a layman’s term meaning “not man made or caused by man.” But, really, aren’t we humans also a part of nature?
#2
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
What do you think “natural” means?

What I think a word means isn't nearly is useful as how a word is defined by a dictionary.  There, we can all agree on the many potential meanings of words like natural and if we don't agree, fault the lexicographer.

Wiktionary defines 28 independent semantic uses of the word natural.
Topic's author
#3
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@oromagi
So, is a beaver dam natural?
#4
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@cristo71

 is a beaver dam natural?

  • In at least two senses:
    • That exists and evolved within the confines of an ecosystem. 
    • Of or relating to nature.



#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@cristo71
Everything that exists or occurs within the universe is natural.

Therefore everything is natural,

Including beaver dams.
#6
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
It depends on the material. If this material does not look like it can evolve in nature, we don't consider it natural.

Like. We don't see random 100 ton chunks of iron being polished and formed in the shape of a rectangle in the middle of the desert.
#7
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
If humans manipulate matter, then that is an evolutionary consequence of human evolution.
#8
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
My point here being:  “natural” is not a very useful or informative descriptor.
Nearly every description in the English language has multiple uses and interpretations, that doesn’t make them useless. Words are just tools for conveying ideas and concepts, if it did the job that’s all we need, if it didn’t then try another one.

To answer your question, I do not consider a beaver damn natural because it was constructed by a thinking agent. Some might disagree. That’s not really important because in the context it’s most often used, it merely contrasts with the human process of altering the chemical makeup of substances in ways that are harmful to the human body.
Topic's author
#9
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@oromagi
Ok. Is the Hoover Dam natural?
Topic's author
#10
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
What, then, is NOT natural?
Topic's author
#11
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Intelligence_06
Is honey natural?
#12
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@cristo71
-->@oromagi
Ok. Is the Hoover Dam natural?

Yes, in at least one sense.

"An almost white colour, with tints of grey, yellow or brown;"

#13
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@cristo71
Yes, because the material is not mutated beyond recognition. Animal hide is natural because you can see that it is from nature. But if I just compress a bunch of animal hide together to form a giant bulk of assorted materials and covered with a thick layer of chalk, you wouldn't even recognize it until we tell you.
#14
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Well, there must be ambiguity if I don't give enough specifications?

First, natural things must be from nature. You can't violate the law of mass conservation and tell us it is natural.

Second, natural things must not be processed beyond recognition. A raw board of iron oxide is natural because we can see that we mined it and we put it together, but a processed dense board of steel is not because nature does not often add carbon and chromium to iron itself. 

Third, Natural things must not be manually invented or created by an organism(other than cellular growth, birth, etc) or another unnatural thing. A zebra is natural because it has undergone evolution. A gun is not because we produce it in our factories. Unless animals can suddenly grow guns(not just organic tubes, they also have to look exactly like what we use as guns), then guns are not natural.

#15
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@cristo71
I actually enjoy this question, Taoism strongly answers this but your question is indeed a brilliant Kritik on the hippie faction.

Hippies often talk of 'natural' and fail to realise that greed, rage, innovation technologically and all kinds of things that harm the planet and ecosystem are natural results of not just humans but nature itself (we are just the most capable active agent species within it).

Humans destroying the environment is natural as is eating meat, rape, murder and all kinds of things. These are all natural parts of us, as horrendous and evil as they are. In fact, what being good means at times is to resist nature and that is where trouble arises. In Christianity, Islam, Judaism and I would even say all faiths other than Taoism but especially the Abrahamic ones, there is encouragment to resist nature. Even Buddhists believe in resisting, they just wait for 'nature' to attack first. Yet, Taoism structures it differently and here is one of the concepts that made me fall in love with the idea of Taoism:

If it is natural within you and others to empathise and do the good, act on it heroically without much hesitation. On the other hand, if it feels less natural and you are forcing yourself to do it out of some sense of either loyalty, altruism or conformity to society's idea of 'justice', ponder on it and weigh up the morals in a sense of 'which ends up being the most natural way to achieve the outcome where the least are suffering'.

Making others suffer is natural, yes, however what Taoism at the highest level of it teaches is that ultimately everyone naturally benefits from a little biasing and tweaking the natural process to favour utilitarian good for the planet and ecosystem. In other words, it is a net-selfish wisdom to at times sacrifice one's own selfish base urges but question why you're doing it. Helping your mother is generally natural but if she is super toxic to you, then focus on self-preservation, same with father, friend or anybody. Helping and good are natural, us as humans protecting nature, punishing rapists and murderers and so many other acts of justice and kindness are also natural as much as the evildoers are acting on their own nature.

Now, ask yourself this, is it very natural for a corporation to snowball into greed at the expense of the planet? Yes... However, how natural is corporate capitalism? That is not the way we naturally competed.

Topic's author
#16
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@oromagi
How about an automobile? Bleach? The plastic jug the bleach comes in?

#17
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@cristo71
What, then, is NOT natural?

  • The International Space Station
  • Chicken McNuggets
  • Donald Trump
Topic's author
#18
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
Nearly every description in the English language has multiple uses and interpretations, that doesn’t make them useless. Words are just tools for conveying ideas and concepts, if it did the job that’s all we need, if it didn’t then try another one.
I’m not saying the word is useLESS. I’m saying that it presently is not a highly useful or uniquely informative adjective. I doubt it was intended to be so. I’m also saying that it is an easily misunderstood and misused adjective. This thread is demonstrating that far better than I expected or intended. I actually wanted to get more into the philosophical aspects of this, as RM has done, but more to do with “nature” as in “the natural world” rather than “what comes naturally” as RM explores it.

To answer your question, I do not consider a beaver damn natural because it was constructed by a thinking agent. Some might disagree. That’s not really important because in the context it’s most often used, it merely contrasts with the human process of altering the chemical makeup of substances in ways that are harmful to the human body.
What makes beavers “a *thinking* agent” (emphasis added)? It seems to me that you are overcomplicating this for yourself, but that, too, supports my point about the word “natural.”

As to your latter point, I agree as far as it goes. The problem is that people have extrapolated that to mean “natural = good” and “not natural = bad”, and that isn’t necessarily the case. Also, your mention of “the human process” supports both my best understanding of the word as stated in my OP, and, again, leads to my stated quasi-philosophical conundrum: are not we humans a part of nature?
Topic's author
#19
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@oromagi
What makes the ISS and Chicken McNuggets not natural as opposed to the Hoover Dam, which you see as natural?
#20
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@cristo71
How about an automobile?
A mix of natural and artificial

Bleach?
Depends on how its manufactured.  The Egyptians used to bleach with burnt seaweed.  The Romans bleached with urine.

The plastic jug the bleach comes in?
I'd call a plastic jug synthetic and not natural.


Topic's author
#21
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@RationalMadman
Thanks for your thoughtful post. You are actually the first to get past the nuts and bolts and into the more philosophical angle that I intended for this thread. This thread has crossover potential into the Philosophy forum, but I am specifically talking about “natural” as in physical substances and structures rather than actions, behaviors, and instincts.

To restate the conundrum a different way:  aren’t humans a part of nature, or do we work in opposition to the natural world? Either way, nature “gets the final say” so to speak. I hope we can all agree on that…

#22
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@cristo71
What makes the ISS and Chicken McNuggets not natural as opposed to the Hoover Dam, which you see as natural?

Hoover Dam is NATURAL in the sense of color.  I suppose the ISS is really a mix of natural and artificial but most components of the actual ship are heavily synthesized, processed, manufactured and there's nothing natural about its location.  Chicken McNuggets are composed of some chicken but no part of that chicken has not been denatured, blended with sugar, salt, broth, and gum and reformed and deep fried in oil.   If you counted actual constituent molecules a McNugget would probably come up more corn than chicken.  Donald Trump is not natural in the sense that he is slathered in make-up that does not resemble any skin tone.  He's bald on top but grows the hair he has very long and has cosmetologists weave and glue that hair into an imitation of a non-bald man's haircut.  If you counted actual constituent molecules Donald Trump would probably come up more aspartame than human.
Topic's author
#23
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@oromagi
How does the Hoover Dam qualify as natural by the Wiktionary definition you pointed to earlier?
#24
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@cristo71
If you don't have much to argue against it then I'd appreciate an upvote to the post you replied to.

If you do, I'd be interested in what you have to say.
Topic's author
#25
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@RationalMadman
Done
#26
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@cristo71
-->@oromagi
How does the Hoover Dam qualify as natural by the Wiktionary definition you pointed to earlier?
Post #12

Natural can  be used to describe a greyish, yellowish, or brownish white- which describes the Hoover Dam pretty well
#27
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@cristo71
I suppose that depends upon how one chooses to apply the term natural.

I insist, that everything that occurs within the universe is natural.....Therefore everything is natural.


Some like to suggest that anything man made is unnatural.....But I disagree.

Our acquired ability to manipulate matter is no different to that of a bee making honey.


Otherwise, is a cheese sandwich natural?
Topic's author
#28
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
As far as the word “natural” having utility and consistency of meaning in this context, I favor the human intervention interpretation. Basically put, “Did we humans have something to do with that, or did we not?” If yes, then it is not natural but artificial, synthetic, etc. If no, then it is deemed “natural.” Take uranium and plutonium, for example. It is meaningfully descriptive to say that one is naturally occurring and the other is not.

BUT… big picture wise, yes, I agree that we are a part of nature, too. It strikes me as self-hating and naively simplistic when some have the knee jerk reaction that natural must be good, and not natural must be bad. For that though, I blame the revolution in chemistry where just about any substance could be concocted to perform a predetermined function but without thought towards the unintended consequences.

#29
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,356
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@cristo71
Unnatural,
Or the unexpected, unusual,
Is a moment one ought be wary, I'd think.

#30
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@cristo71
So in terms of intervention.

Limestone rock for example, formed from the remains of aquatic invertebrates.

Is this natural or synthetic rock developed by sea creatures?


And the bread and the cheese I mentioned earlier.....Natural or synthetic food?