This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we will be discussing what the meaning of "natural" is when applied to food and various practices. Why do we generally feel that natural is better and is it so?
I use food as an example as that seems to be where the natural/unnatural differentiation shows up most in our daily lives. It is likely the motivation behind the trend to "organic" foods and "free range" raised meat products.
But what exactly is natural?
There are few things more wholesome than apples from a farm or orchard, freshly plucked ripe from an apple tree. Even versions of the bible mention apple as the temptation by the talking snake to lead Adam and Eve into sin.
Then I find out that the modern day apple is a result of generations of genetic engineering through grafting of different species to get to the variety of different apples that we use for eating, cooking, making cider etc., that genetically apples are found to be from crabapples or some wild variety originally far inland in Asia minor and likely not that appealing when it comes to choice of fruits.
So much with apples being natural and all of us picking up original sin for something worthwhile.
I understand that there are dog owners who are convinced that their dogs do better on a diet of raw meat. It seems right somehow and more "natural" for dogs as carnivores to be eating raw meat rather than following human diets. After all, that was what dogs and their predecessors the grey wolf, was doing so it must be natural, and therefore, better for them.
The question of course is, why are we not eating raw meat ourselves? Cooking our food is likely the most "unnatural" thing to do to our food except that it was started long time ago.
Is it possible that when we yearn for "natural", we are yearning for the familiar, the tried and true, rather than something new, different and possibly harmful?
Is it our natural conservative nature of resisting change expressed in a preference for "natural"?
We routinely have farm products but feel uncomfortable about farmed fish. Maybe some day we will also get use to the idea that fish should be farmed like all other vegetables and grains?
What other explanations may there be for a preference for "natural" products and definitions for the descriptor "natural"?
I look forward to your ideas this coming Wednesday!
Oliver the puzzle continues. I could not post the following from my desktop running under win XP and I tried with both Firefox and IE I also changed my settings to allow cookies from your site. Now on my laptop [ Firefox under win 7] and posting what I planned to post.
ReplyDeleteWhat is natural is such a huge topic. Just think of the medical and dental professions. Natural??
This post is mainly to test my capacity to post.
Oliver, I know you must list your topics far ahead. Consider a topic "How We Think" or rather "How We Think We Think"
2 reasons I mention it.
1. Most of our topics are of the form "What do we think about X" rather than about the thinking process itself.
2. See below for some notes on a 2011 book that I plan to check out.
"In "Thinking, fast and slow", Daniel Kahneman takes us on a tour through his work over the last half a century. Good thing is, the Economics Nobel prize winner has been a dominant figure in cognitive psychology - which makes the book an introduction to that field as well as behavioral economics, which his research helped to found…."
"Selected by the New York Times Book Review as one of the best books of 2011A Globe and Mail Best Books of the Year 2011 Title One of The Economist’s 2011 Books of the Year One of The Wall Street Journal's Best Nonfiction Books of the Year 2011"
Quotes are from Google books.
Dan
Noticed that message going out required a "redirect", perhaps my desktop somehow blocks redirects. Dan
DeleteI wonder if it is the reason why some religion forbids blood transfusions. It is "natural" to die and have rotten teeth so no use for doctors and dentists. In fact, they call what they do "interventions".
DeleteFate, what has to be, has to be, no point in stopping fate.
Why bother doing anything? Food will appear on our table by fate anyway. It is not "natural" to kill for food and rob plants of their fruit and seeds for our consumption.
Or, nothing happens if we don't try. Continuous improvement is the road to success.
Greetings Oliver,
ReplyDeleteThe GMO (genetically modified organism) debate is endless and is interconnected with biotechnology, environmentalism, and Green politics.
It is connected to psychology too: Are some emotions natural and others contrived and some yet culturally both and controlled by display rules?
'Phoniness' is a quality of being unnatural that contaminates everything. 'Genuineness' is a universal virtue connected with 'honesty'.
'Genetic pollution' partakes of dishonesty and may even interfere with the 'true' path of evolution.
Natural is sometimes contrasted with 'spiritual' and the futurologists' scientifically predicted future contrasts with gifted prophetically predicted future of religious leaders. Politicians don't like to take sides but prefer to look both religious and scientific. Who can take control of the policy domains?
Have a natural day!
Greetings again Oliver,
ReplyDeleteShould humanity take control over the human genome? Should we also take stewardship over those of other species? And, the planet?
Can we rationally plan the future of the human genome and the genetics of other species and the earthly environments too? Or, is incremental planning best -- and why?
What principles should be used for artificial selection of genotypes? If this is simply too complicated and too difficult with present technology, how do we make decisions?
Skinner's argument in "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" is that not to plan our culture is to plan to accept the defaults for our culture. It is best, with science, to plan our culture. Does this apply to genomes?
I think Trudeau promised to stay out of the bedrooms of the nation when it comes to political policy. Should we use engineering principles for the family and other institutions? Or, should we accept defaults? Is this a case where failing to plan amounts to planning to fail?
Again, have a natural day!
Greetings a third time,
ReplyDeleteIs it natural (and therefore appropriate) for the human genome to have 'defects' or impairements and disabilities? On what basis do we eliminate defects?
Is it natural (and therefore appropriate) for the human genome to have 'excellencies' and are these exceptions superior to normal cases?
Is there a basis for negative eugenics? Is there a basis for positive eugenics? Or, are there natural bases and/or defaults for both of these?
What is the meaning of natural birth in a world of widespread practices of birth control? Is there a natural and appropriate way to be born?
Is abortion inappropriate negative eugenics? Who has the right to decide for abortion? Are most disagreements in this area over special cases? What is meaningful in the desire for every child to be a wanted child? Is this a realist goal? Is it natural?
There are often described two types of male reproductive strategy: (1) mate with as many partners as possible at as early an age as possible; (2) mate with one partner at the optimal age taking optimal provision for offspring. One is considered irresponsible and the other is considered responsible. Both are natural. Female reproductive strategies may be multiple too.
Do reproductive strategies change according to the context? One strategy during disaster and anarchy and one during safety and peace.
Could psychopaths be a means of carrying beneficial genes across periods of disaster and anarchy and thus serve an evolutionarily useful purpose? Or, are psychopaths wired differently than normal humans and should be eliminated from the genome?
Should small pox have been eradicated? Host-parasite relations evolutionarily start out as destructive for the host but gradually become increasingly more mutualistic.
Could the small pox virus have evolved into beneficial biological material for the human species? On the basis of what arguments do we choose to eradicate small pox?
How do we avoid the naturalistic fallacy? When can we go from an "is" to and "ought"? Just because small pox exists, does that make it have a right to exist? Does that even make it potentially beneficial?
Does human permission to share the planet make something natural and human choice to eradicate it make it unnatural? A sort of positivist definition of natural?
Anyway, I have said enough for now. Have a natural day!
All these ideas about genetics is almost like chaos theory. Unintended consequences are everywhere.
DeleteCan we be held responsible if we inadvertently cause something?
Is the intent more important than the end result?
Another add in,
ReplyDeleteAre all disasters 'natural disasters' or are they all 'man-made disasters'? That old document "Agenda 21" from the Earth Summit of 1992 suggests that all disasters may be foreseen and managed better through international political effort. Can and should the natural and the political be one?
Are Aristotle' four causes analogous to areas of nature, nurture, culture, and future? Or is a kind of monist all inclusive nature best?
Happy naturalism!
Maybe it is the usual answer to the normal nature vs. nurture debate; it is both!
Deletewill this mean that some modification of nature is a good thing and improving on nature is a good thing - but not too much? How much is too much and which is not to be changed at all?
Greetings again,
ReplyDeleteI am using XP with IE on an ancient desktop. I went to this website, clicked on the blue 'comments' choice, and am now doing a comment.
Read "Ignorance Is Not Bliss: The Perils of Genetic Engineering" by David Suzuki from "Nature's Operating Instructions: The True Biotechnologies" edited by Kenny Ausubel (2004). Perhaps I shall be ready to take on Suzuki's introductory genetics textbook sometime soon.