Meeting on what is natural and why is it better

I just got back from our Wednesday Ideas Cafe discussing what is natural and why is it better.

We had a hard time coming up with a definition.  "Not altered by man" suggested by Dan is perhaps the closest but then that is no indication that it would be better.  In fact, most things that have been altered by man such as various foods like apples, tomatoes, etc are better after the alteration. 

After all, we are constantly trying to improve things and successful in various fronts.

Medical procedures are called "interventions" as they are intervening with nature to alter the course of the disease.  Very unnatural to cure someone instead of letting the disease take its course.

Maybe "natural" is a more useful term for tribes in the deep jungle where very little have been altered by man and "natural" can be used to apply to more things. People living in that environment do not understand as much about their environment and use "natural" as a form of explanation of how things behave - a kind of acceptance of what is.

Another possible source of the use of natural is from people who thinks our current society is fraud with problems and they look back to the "good old days" where less things were altered by man.  Therefore linking "better" good old days with "natural".  As usual, these nostalgic viewpoint are never that balanced and tends to ignore all the nasty bits in the "good old days".

It is hard to find facts to support or justify the notion that "natural" is "better".

Mano suggested that "natural" may not be useful in the absolute sense but perhaps better used in a relative sense where some things are less altered by man compared to others.

The conclusion is that we should be careful when someone tries to convince us that what they are trying to sell us is better because it is natural.  They are likely trying to give us a good feeling with no basis for it, taking advantage of the slippery nature of the word "natural".

How shall we respond to that sales pitch or discussion?

First thing is to decide whether "natural" is being use as descriptive or prescriptive.

Descriptive is just describing something as from the earth and less altered by man.

Prescriptive includes an agenda trying to use "natural" to justify a point of view.  For example, saying that it is "natural" to be heterosexual is just using the vague term "natural" to justify a point of view against homosexuality. 

People with a religious viewpoint and believe in the existence of god would say that god want things a certain way because he is the maker.  So natural can be used to denote god's will of how things should work.

For atheist not believing in the existence of god, this notion of natural does not exist.

Shula gave the example that the cup of coffee she is drinking was made by the coffee maker intending the coffee to taste a certain way. So it is natural or no surprise if the coffee taste as the coffee maker intended and therefore the taste can be described as natural (or expected).  However, if no one made the coffee, then that is just how that coffee taste and there is no natural or unnatural taste.

Mike wonders if natural is just one of the many words that have slippery meanings and meant only to invite a further discussion of the topic at hand.  So if someone said that a cream is made of natural ingredients, that person is inviting you to ask what these ingredients are and how they are good for you.

As usual, the discussion was very enjoyable with many diversions along the way, lots of laughter about the digressions not meant for the blog.