Philosophy: What is Natural?

Charles Darwin described a mechanism within nature which shaped species. However, some understood this observation as a philosophical truth. They believed that if nature acted in that fashion then it would only be natural for humanity to organize itself in the same way. So the question became, should we try to emulate nature?

People always talk about the benefits of natural foods and a natural lifestyle. You might hear the objection to an idea that “it’s not natural”. The rhetoric brings to mind pictures of cleanliness and health. However, is this true?

First, natural foods – there’s some truth. Natural foods before agriculture sucked. However, too many additives, saturated fats and refined sugars cause obesity and heart disease. However, it’s also “natural” for us to seek out fatty and sugary foods. Our hunter-gather ancestors would’ve had little access to such dietary resources and taking advantage of the added sugar and fat would have been valuable. However, in the modern world of plenty it has become detrimental to our health. Humans are evolved to be long distance runners. Our ancestors were persistence hunters, chasing an animal until it got exhausted.

Is it natural to carbo load? Is it natural to enjoy the taste of sugar? Is it natural to eat a genetically modified banana?

Some people state that we should not drink milk. They warn that “humans are the only animal that drinks the milk of another animal.” This might sound pretty stark and concerning. They worry about hormones in the milk and it’s ability to cause lactation problems. However, we need to weigh up the advantages of cow’s milk next to not drinking it. Before modern medicine, the natural world would claim the lives of six out of seven children before the age of one. Is this better because it’s natural or should we try to defy nature and save these children?

Some people argue that a woman’s purpose in life is to have children. A woman’s natural role within our species is to reproduce. However, if a woman decides not to have children is her life somehow less fulfilled or purposeful than a woman with children?

There are many benefits to understanding our own nature. Understanding that bingeing on a whole pack of Oreos would’ve been good for our hunter-gather ancestors but not for us modern humans. We’re not going to be jogging 20 miles across the Savannah chasing a warthog. Humans didn’t evolve to sit on the couch all day. So should we be jogging 20 miles a day if that’s natural?

Secondly, a natural lifestyle.

Our human ancestors in nature had to self-source food and covering a large amount of land in a day was pivotal. Nowadays we have an organized society. Some people farm. Some people clean. Some people fight. It’s within our nature to do all. So should we be doing all? Ever seen naked and afraid? Forget 10 days in the wilderness, do you want to live that way?

Some argue that same-sex attraction and transitioning gender shouldn’t be acceptable because they’re not natural. However, we can ask once more: Does natural mean good? Isn’t an individuals freedom to be happy more important than what is normal in nature? Flying is not natural, so should we stop doing it?

In addition, examples of same-sex attraction can be found in nature.  An example would be in Bonobo colonies. There’s even an example of transitioning gender within nature with the clown fish. When the lone female dies, the dominant male become female. There’s even examples of celibacy within nature with ant & bee colonies only the queen mates.

In nature, humans died from things we’re unlikely to today. Our hunter-gather ancestors didn’t have vaccines to protect them from disease. However, our ancestors would often die from a small cut or easily treatable disease. Is it better to die from natural causes or to live through human intervention? Isn’t it natural to want to save lives and protect our species?

Thirdly, a natural society.

During the Victorian age, some people took Charles Darwin’s idea and believed governmental policies should follow it. Herbert Spencer was the one who coined the term “Survival of the Fittest” and believed that the rich were the fittest and the poor were the unfit. He believed that the working class were just not as smart, hardworking or civilized as the upper class. He believed that charity and government support of the poor was unnatural and would stifle and stagnant society with poor, weak and lazy poor people.

During the industrial revolution believed that the innovation of machines that made labor easier was a direct rebellion against God. In Genesis, God’s punishment for man was to “curse the ground… through painful toil you will eat food from it.” And some people believed that the discovery of painkillers for birthing mothers was a rebellion against God’s curse when he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe with painful labor will you give birth to children.” Should tractors and painkillers be shunned because they aren’t natural?

The application of Social Darwinism is most dangerous when it becomes racial. During the holocaust, Jewish people, Roma people, gay people and disabled people were systematically massacred because they were considered less fit to those who were in power.

How do you think Darwin would feel about these interpretations of his discovery?

What is natural?

Can you give an example of something that isn’t natural or constructed from natural material?

How about a car? The metals occur naturally under the earth. The rubber comes from tree sap, leather seats come from cow skin.

Vaccines are name of biological material. Antibodies that naturally occur in the body. Many people nowadays are against vaccinating children but it’s because we’re privileged to have long forgotten the days of dying from tetanus, diphreria, measles, hepatitis & polio. The reason these don’t seem like dangers anymore is because of the vaccines.

What would be a better question than asking “Is it natural?”

(How will it affect me? How will it affect others?)

Page 25 of Sapiens

End with 147-top 149 of sapiens 

"The scientific way of thinking has a further characteristic. The concepts which it uses to build up its coherent systems are not expressing emotions. For the scientist, there is only “being,” but no wishing, no valuing, no good, no evil; no goal. As long as we remain within the realm of science proper, we can never meet with a sentence of the type: “Thou shalt not lie.” Scientific statements of facts and relations, indeed, cannot produce ethical directives." - Albert Einstein