If you intresting in sport Buy trenbolone and Buy testosterone enanthate you find place where you can find information about steroids
  • Resources

  • Book of the Month

  • Shopping on Amazon? Use this search box and support Dangerous Talk at the same time.
  • Blog Directories

    blog search directory Religion Top Blogs
  • AdSense

The Fallacy of The Natural

I have noticed that in modern society, people seem to be all about the “All Natural” label. If a food is “all natural” people seem to think that is analogous to it been healthy or good in some way. This claim however is an irrational one probably brought about through good marketing. I also think that religious belief may be somewhat responsible for this fallacy. The idea is that God created everything for a reason and therefore the natural world is of God. Everything in it must be good by definition. On the flip side of this is the idea that humans are “fallen” creatures. We are all sinners who are imperfect and those fallible. Anything human made must therefore be faulty as well. The argument goes that a flawed being cannot make something, which is not flawed and a perfect being cannot make something, which is imperfect. So is one were to subscribe to this world view, the logic would dictate that anything from God (i.e. natural) would have to be better than anything that is from man (i.e. artificial).

This is of course a bunch of horseshit and if you don’t believe me, try ingesting arsenic (a very natural poison) and next time you need have a headache, don’t you dare take anything unnatural to make you feel better. Oh, and while you are at it you might as well strip naked (clothes don’t grow on trees you know) and start running around in the sun and see how long it takes you to get skin cancer. By the way, what the fuck are you doing on a computer?

Now that we have established that natural doesn’t always mean good and synthetic or artificial doesn’t always mean bad, why is it that Christians go around calling certain behaviors “unnatural” as if that means anything? I’ll get into that question more in tomorrow’s Daily Blog.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • http://www.myspace.com/andrewtheatheist AndrewtheAtheist

    I absolutely refuse to purchase “all natural” or “organic” foods. “Cage free” eggs are not for me. I want my veggies to have been protected against parasites and insects. I like the taste of cages in my eggs. If you don’t want me to purchase something, be sure to tell me it is “100% natural”.

  • Colleen

    A great paradox i have found in this country and has negatively effected be in serious ways is the prohibition of marijuana. Our country is run or at least largely influenced by the religious right and they believe that God created everything you see in seven days and said the words “it is good” however it seems that marijuana is “bad”. The dude said it in your own bible shits good! how can you outlaw nature?! It is useful in a million different ways and all of them positive. I call blasphemy!

    • Logic

      Yeah for some reason everything natural is good except for marijuana. (and so far, all human-made pills that are supposed to have the same medicinal effects are marijuana haven’t been as good as the real thing)
      I don’t really take a side in the “natural” argument. Whether it’s natural or human-made, it’s made of chemicals, so it only matters if the chemicals actually work.

  • Leo

    Yesterday’s comments really pissed you off, huh, did you read my blog? Or just assume what I was saying again?

    BTW, people did ingest arsenic for years as a natural remedy…and willows were the original asprin…you didn’t just leap: you flew! All the way over synthetics…so, synthetic babies are okay? How do you feel about the Love-Ewe (synthetic sheep)?

    And as an Atheist, I thought I defended my position on natural-unnatural? No…hmm.

    • admin

      Believe it or not Leo, this blog isn’t all about you. I have had many a midnight philosophical discussion about the fallacy of the natural. Your comments simply prompted me to talk about it today instead of a week from now or two weeks from now. Tomorrow’s discussion will follow this same line of thinking and again it isn’t all about you. My blogs are rarely directed at one person in particular. Usually I have had these discussions with more than one person before and that is why I choose to blog about it.
      -Staks

      • Leo

        if it were why would I be here? simply to debate myself? Nonsense.

  • http://www.geocities.com/shaunphilly ShaunPhilly

    One of my favorites is when people say that homosexuality isn’t natural, as an attempt to give some non-religious reason for being anti-gay or simply against gay marriage.

    If it isn’t natural, how could it exist?

    Of course, I am a naturalist, so for me all their is is the natural. Thus, for me, even so-called “artificial” things are natural, as our actions are part of the natural process of the universe. Artificial simply means made by humans; I don’t see it as the opposite of natural, necessarily. I see the true dichotomy between artificial and non-artificial. Still, non-artificial is not necessarily better.

    • A-Dizzle

      Yeah, I find the whole “being gay is unnatural” argument amusing when we’ve found homosexual behavior exhibited by many animal species (penguins, dolphins, etc). Oh well, if people were actually informed they wouldn’t hold that position in the first place.

      • Leo

        Defending my position and thinking again…for a general launching pad, I’ll use Wikipedia:

        Homosexuality is same (biological-sex) sexual attraction; there exists a homosexual-bisexual-heterosexual continuum for such thought; it is not gender identity (the psychological perception of being male or female: or inter-sexed as Anne Fausto-Sterling would add); it is not a social gender role (culturally defined sense of masculine / feminine, unless “being gay” becomes an acceptable role); it is estimated (not admitted) that 2-13% have committed homosexual behavior (but this is from a handfull of documented countries…world?)

        Homosexual behavior is “unnatural.” I’m not saying homosexual behavior is unnatural amongst species; 1500 species have been observed committing homosexual acts; however, two gay penguins in Central Park hardly speaks for the entire species or for the human species; nor do brain altered and pheromone induced flies; as for dolphins evolving homosexual behavior to control male aggression, the conjuncture that humans evolved homosexual behavior for a similar purpose is wrought with homophobia and gay violence, nor should we forget that women are included here (thus another failed argument ceases).

        Unless, someone were to say religion made this fail, but then at some point they would have to accept that religion (in this light) is natural; an evolutionary by-product of our society that keeps homosexual behavior in-check…defense system for procreation: That my friend is a strange idea for an atheist to accept.

        When I say “unnatural” I refer to the biological aspect of gene transfer. If you’re going to say that gene transfer strictly from man to woman to offspring is unnecessary, then I have plenty of reason to argue with you. Procreation is reproduction; humans reproduce by sexual reproduction; remove sperm or egg from the equation and there is no reproduction; remove male or female from the equation and one of them becomes a commodity-donor for the other and I’m sure Val Plumwood would have plenty to say about othering.

        Next, I define marriage as the union between different-biological sex people who are intimate and sexual for the formation of a family unit through procreation, education and nurturing of children; it may for some but it was not for me a simple legal union, nor was it for social or economic stability.

        Yet neither of these arguments while defending my view of homosexuality as either “unnatural” evolutionarily speaking, nor “unnatural” in the sense of marriage would exclude homosexual behavior or deny them rights to hold similar roles in society. Homosexuals can adopt or have donor parents; as reproduction technology increases so too will the number of healthy babies (procreation stems further then perceived availability or sexual orientation); homosexuals are allowed to participate in parenthood, the education and nurturing of children; therefore they should be allowed to marry.

        So, I have a minor qualm with the terminology; marriage should be defined as between a man and woman; gays and lesbians should have their own marriage terms…it is not gay-bashing: Saying I don’t trust their reasoning is not gay-bashing. Nor is stating the obvious gay-bashing; anal sex is a shitty experience! I could just as easily said red-wings make messy mustaches!

        If you don’t like my view, fine. Just don’t say I’m against gay-rights or participate in hate-crimes. And PLEASE, don’t tell me to get educated on race, gender, or sexuality; if you do I’ll have to ask you to do the same.

        • http://shaunphilly.wordpress.com Shaun

          Leo said…

          “Unless, someone were to say religion made this fail, but then at some point they would have to accept that religion (in this light) is natural; an evolutionary by-product of our society that keeps homosexual behavior in-check…defense system for procreation: That my friend is a strange idea for an atheist to accept.”

          I would say that religion is natural. I would say that there is nothing odd about two natural things taht may be ad odds with one-another. This happens all the time.

          The bottom line, for me, is that things like religon have usurped things like ?marriage” and taken them as their terms taht they can define. This is the myth of traditional marriage which so many people believe is one man/one woman. The simple fact is that marriage developed out of a property relationship, and so the “traditional” marriage has already evolved. It’s simply time to allow the term to evolve some more.

          Language, concepts, ect evolve over time. That is natural too.

        • A-Dizzle

          Leo,

          Now you’re just redefining the term natural to try to win the argument. You can’t do that. The definition of natural means “of the natural world”, or “existing in nature”. Homosexuality exists in nature outside of human behavior (as you state, over 1500 species have been observed exhibiting homosexual behavior), therefore it is by definition natural. You can’t redefine the term to suit your agenda.

    • Logic

      There are tons of things people do every day that are much more unnatural than homosexuality. How come religious people don’t talk about how unnatural it is to sit in front of a computer? Or take fertility drugs to get pregnant with octuplets?

  • Leo

    The natural and unnatural: I thought I’d done a fairly decent job defending this position in previous posts, but nobody reads my blog (so I’ll bring it), they skim the title or something (my blog manager say’s you were here…so, I’m taking your silence as affirmation from now on).

    Onward! I love the synonyms and antonyms for: Natural and organic, unnatural and inorganic; usual, normal, ordinary, accepted, expected, innate, whole, unrefined, untreated, crude, abnormal, perverted, twisted, deviant, lifeless, dead, and inert. Good and bad connotation are added to these words which contradict our meanings: A matter of perspective or preference perhaps.

    In our last discussion, I claimed: That when homosexuals forfeit the natural process of reproduction then they are committing unnatural acts. That what they are really doing is turning sperm / egg into commodities that can be easily bought and sold: This is not usual, not normal, not ordinary, nor accepted (by me at least), not innate or whole by any means, but rather twisted for their own device, abnormal, and deviant to the natural course of reproduction. Kind of perverse when you think of it like that, huh.

    There are other examples where perspective, preference and perversion complicate daily life. For one, is nuclear energy natural or unnatural? Organic or Inorganic? Is it good or bad?

    On the bad-side there is Chernobyl, Three-Mile Island, and Hiroshima to consider. Plus, isn’t nuclear proliferation all the rage with Iran and North Korea right now? Nuclear waste will not degrade to safe levels of radiation in our lifetime or in our great, great, great, great grandchildren’s lifetimes. When fresh water is probably our most precious commodity nuclear energies deplete our reserves and render them unsafe / unusable. Then there are the environmental mining aspects to retrieve the radioactive ores and processing to consider.

    On the other side of this topic, radioactive minerals occur naturally in deposits, and most radioisotopes are manufactured for nuclear purposes. On the good-side of nuclear technology there is Positron emission tomography (so doctors can look inside your body without cutting it), it’s used in road construction and well-logging (so you know the road is sturdy enough or the well will produce water and/or oil), smoke detectors (so you know when your house is on fire), and food irradiation (to kill all the germs). Nuclear energy is also cleaner than burning fossil fuels. Hmm: It seems natural and inorganic both describe nuclear energy, along with several synonyms and antonyms that put it in both good and bad categories.

    Let’s put a God-spin on this form an atheists perspective, shall we? All of creation is good; God said so Himself (through his human-voice box: Moses). Then man / woman went and pissed God off and for punishment He cursed the Earth and humans to it, (Moses say’s so in Genesis 3 14:19, so it must be true). So, if this Earth is cursed and we are cursed, then nothing is good in this world. Wouldn’t this be Hell on Earth?

    A couple paragraphs before this God was spouting on about how good gold and bdellium is, so what are we to think about gold and incense now that we’re cursed? Or uranium for that matter? Wasn’t God saying nature is a utility, go use it? If we hadn’t pissed Him off would He have been pleased to know humans could shape gold into aesthetically pleasing items? Obviously not, He hated the fucking golden calf! Then why would He say gold is good if He did not intend for its use? Then again, we’re cursed, gold is cursed, and it’s no wonder humans took a pretty rock like gold and turned it into currency and shielding for spacecraft: If it pleased God, it will please us even if it’s cursed. And again, God created uranium, it’s cursed, nuclear energy is cursed, smoke detectors are cursed, millions of Japanese were cursed because we wanted to be like God and play with atoms!

    Genesis is filled with dominance by man. The power to name, kill, eat, farm, and fashion clothing from animals / plants was given to man by God. The reason Adam and Eve decided they needed to wear leaf-bikinis was a power God tempted them with…consumption contained the knowledge of good and evil. But then I ask, nakedness is evil? Isn’t the naked body natural? Wouldn’t clothing pervert the body that was unashamed when it was naked? No, because God was wearing clothing…now I have to ask, is He cursed too? Cursed to the knowledge of good and evil and everlasting life? (It’s like He created some friends just to curse them, yeah! Or worse, if He’s your father-figure, then what a poor display of nurturing and education He’s made of Himself in Adam and Eves early developmental years!)

    Fortunately, for atheists there is no God. Therefore all of the Earth is natural and therefore all anthropogenic contribution is natural. The idea that humans are somehow not part of nature or above it has created the word “anthropogenic” a word that carries negative meaning; human creation which conflicts with the environment. A little skimming of history reveals that in the course of human ingenuity accidents also give rise to new technologies.

    But for the human mind…and for our species for that matter, where does natural stop and unnatural begin? And where does that leave homosexuals? Being educated in ecology, I’d say homosexuals found a niche in society and are exploiting it to their fullest, naturally in a socially “unnatural” and sexually reproductive “unnatural” manner.

    I’ll pause here, and you think about that. After that see if you can find arguments that support homosexual-exploitation; unfortunately, I believe even those will be circular in nature and everything added makes the black hole denser: Go ahead, defend homosexuals all you want, and bash-Christians too…it’s only natural.

    • Mr. X

      “That what they are really doing is turning sperm / egg into commodities that can be easily bought and sold”

      And what were they before? I’d say, human waste that we shamelessly flush down the toilet…at least, more often than not.

      If someone wants to buy my sperm, they’re welcome to it. I wasn’t going to use it for anything!

      • Mr. X

        My bad…my second comment was meant as a reply to/continuation of this one, but it appears below.

  • Hawkeye

    Well said! Far too many people put entirely too much faith in the whole “all natural” logos that you see plastered across the aisles. Frankly, it seems more useful as a marketing ploy than as a “standard” of safe foods or products.

    Here’s something natural for ya…I can shit in a recycled paper bag and sell that for $10 per person! Hey, it’s ALL-NATURAL! Right?

  • Mr. X

    …And what are you saying, anyway? That people DON’T have the right to buy or sell “commodities” that their very own bodies produced? Even if you could justify such a position, how on EARTH would you deign to enforce such laws?

    This is the root problem with cultural-conservative, fascist imbeciles like yourself, and the underlying mentality of your platform. You lie awake, tossing and turning at night, obsessing over actions taken by people you don’t know, which have no effect WHATSOEVER on you or your own life. Your entire agenda revolves around sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong, and shoving your “morals” down the throat of anyone who doesn’t absolutley conform to your irrational standards.

    • Leo

      Mr. X says: “…And what are you saying, anyway? That people DON’T have the right to buy or sell “commodities” that their very own bodies produced? Even if you could justify such a position, how on EARTH would you deign to enforce such laws? This is the root problem with cultural-conservative, fascist imbeciles like yourself, and the underlying mentality of your platform. You lie awake, tossing and turning at night, obsessing over actions taken by people you don’t know, which have no effect WHATSOEVER on you or your own life. Your entire agenda revolves around sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong, and shoving your “morals” down the throat of anyone who doesn’t absolutley conform to your irrational standards.

      Leo says: I thought so, you simply saw inflammatory words and began your accusations. If this is just an atheist ego-petting zoo, then maybe I am talking to myself. As for your points: People do sell their body parts, fluids, and babies. People deign to prevent the trade of people and body parts daily…however their not told their lowering themselves in any way or forced to protect something they feel deeply for: life, liberty and justice.

      There is an ever increasing demand for such services / parts. It is condoned. I emphasize with the people who are physically incapable of having children, and I wish everyone of them could adopt a child or find meaningful ways to participate in nurturing and educating children: I want to see science helping these people to concieve. If lesbians want to have children then I concede, let them, no encourage them to do so. If people want to treat sperm and egg as mere ends to their means, get a buck for it. I won’t.

      As for that market place…it may be pretty easy to forget that in the scheme of things this tradeoff will come with harmful side effects, even immediate effects like tissue rejection and constant drug therapy / (all this and nobodies tackled mental health which has a huge effect not only on the direct participants but on society as a whole both good and bad.) But then which and what body parts would you be willing to sell right now, Mr. X? The useless ones? Should I reverse this and ask, what would you pay for a kidney or an eye? What would be a fair price for that sperm that was just going to go in your sock?

      Mr. X, you’d probably sell yours to the octa-mom if you could. I bet the trade of babies skyrockets with your advice! And if that is your philosophy then you should be investing in people like the octa-mom!

      BREEDERS!

      If Mr. X wants to sell body parts then why not whole people? Lord knows Mr. X could use a few full grown African males, especially when his liver goes out and his kidneys fail! (Now whose screaming?) I bet if you couldn’t find one through “legal” venues, perhaps you’d “look the other way” if there were not willing donors? Who’d you pick? Christians?

      Are you being emphatic?

      Is it fascist to think stem cells could actually be people if allowed to fully develop? Does that say anything about excluding other sources of stem cells? I find the whole idea of genetic recombination fascinating! Am I an imbecile for recognizing the risks involved with donating plasma or bone marrow (aka stem cells); maybe my attitude is biased to the scientific possibility that I could die next time? Doctor says no more, hmm, guess I shouldn’t donate; doesn’t say anything about what you do…go donate, Red Cross needs blood.

      And yes I do toss and turn every night over these issues because they do effect me directly, in my life, my family, my friends, co-workers and yes even to the broader community of internet goers. I didn’t come here to complain about the ills of Christianity, I came here discuss how we can cope with theists. I don’t like to flame, but call me another name when I’m having a bad day… ;)

      Or perhaps you’d like to explain what you meant when you said, “Your entire agenda revolves around sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong, and shoving your “morals” down the throat of anyone who doesn’t absolutley conform to your irrational standards,” well now doesn’t that sound exactly like a hypocrite, maybe someone you know?

      Rosie? Rosie Palmer? Is there a Rosie Palmer here?

      I concede only that the process of evolution is uncertain on what or who comes out on top, or rather that which survives. The history of Human ingenuity proves that we need to show caution and prudence.

      Bit windy today Stak’s, sorry for that, but big words sometimes require extra thought.

      • Mr. X

        The exact point where you revealed yourself as a hatemongering idiot was here:

        “That when homosexuals forfeit the natural process of reproduction then they are committing unnatural acts. That what they are really doing is turning sperm / egg into commodities that can be easily bought and sold: This is not usual, not normal, not ordinary, nor accepted (by me at least), not innate or whole by any means, but rather twisted for their own device, abnormal, and deviant to the natural course of reproduction. Kind of perverse when you think of it like that, huh.”

        “Perverse when you think of it like that”? No, thinking of it “like that” does not make those acts perverse. However, when YOU “think of it like that” it makes YOU a cultural-conservative, fascist imbecile, who lies awake, tossing and turning at night, obsessing over actions taken by people you don’t know, which have no effect WHATSOEVER on you or your own life. It makes YOU complicit in an agenda that revolves around sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong, and shoving your “morals” down the throat of anyone who doesn’t absolutley conform to your irrational standards – irrational, subjective standards of what’s “normal, ordinary, and accepted” – by you, at least.

        “People do sell their body parts, fluids, and babies. People deign to prevent the trade of people and body parts daily…however their not told their lowering themselves in any way or forced to protect something they feel deeply for: life, liberty and justice.”

        “Should I reverse this and ask, what would you pay for a kidney or an eye? What would be a fair price for that sperm that was just going to go in your sock?”

        And now we get to another demonstration of your imbecility!

        Your response was rambly and disjointed, I had a very hard time making sense of your arguments; and a harder time making educated guesses as to what was supposed to fill your yawning logic-gaps. But here’s what I got out of it. If I got it wrong, please correct me.

        I asked whether “people had the right to buy or sell “commodities” that their own bodies produce.”

        You “refuted” me by changing the definition of “commodities”, from the one I was referring to (cum in my sock/in the toilet/in your mom’s diaphragm/etc.) in the above context, to one that I was not referring to in that context (vital bodily fluids; tissue; organs; etc.; and actual babies).

        No, idiot. I’m not talking about any of those things. Nor was I before. Nice try, though!

        Human beings obviously should not be bought or sold as “commodities.” And people should not be placed in exploitive situations, in which they are pressured to sell their eyes, organs, bone marrow, or anything else important to their survival or quality of life.

        However, “cum in my sock” does not fit into any of these categories. I will do whatever I WANT with it, and I will be absolutely damned if anyone’s going to try to “regulate” this.
        “If people want to treat sperm and egg as mere ends to their means, get a buck for it. I won’t.”

        Currently, to the best of my knowledge, the current market has set the sale-price of my semen at $0 (though I admittedly haven’t looked into this lately). The point is, while my own body produced it through an involuntary mechanism, it’s certainly not worth anything to ME; it does not contribute to my survival or well-being in any way. I would contend that anyone who WANTS to buy my sperm is merely an idiot, because sperm is almost always available in abundance, if you ask the right person. The only potential concern to myself would be that this hypothetical buyer might use it to impregnate themselves or someone else, and that later, the resulting mother might file a paternity suit against me. I wouldn’t care if some stranger wanted to have MY child by artificial means, as long as they understood that their decision was not in any way my responsibility, and that said child would not, for any intents and purposes, be considered my progeny or responsibility, regardless of genetic resemblance. Because as I pointed out, sperm is cheap. Anyone can get some of it, somewhere; if they didn’t use mine, they’d find someone else’s, so in the final outcome it wouldn’t make any difference if I said “no” to them, anyway.

        I suppose you’re going to try to say…shit, I don’t even know what. Fly off into the “every sperm is sacred” Monty Python routine? Try to tell me that if I sell my sperm that I’m somehow selling children?

        There’s a distinction between “something that could become a human” and a “human.” When we get to talking about embryos and fetuses, it gets uncomfortably fuzzy, but outside of that scenario, the distinction is clear enough.

        “Is it fascist to think stem cells could actually be people if allowed to fully develop?”

        No, it’s not fascist to THINK that; but to grant a stemcell the
        same ethical significance as actual human being is irrational and idiotic. I can’t help noticing that you used the phrase “ALLOWED to fully develop”, rather than “CAUSED” or better yet “CULTIVATED to fully develop.” You make it sound like you could just plant them in the ground, and they’d turn into people.

        Maybe, stem cells could be cultivated, deliberately, in carefully maintained and regulated conditions, to eventually become fully developed people. But in their initial form, they’re still nothing but raw biological material. “Stem cells could actually be people if allowed I mean cultivated to fully develop” is an intriguing observation, but it carries no ethical significance as an argument; it is ethically irrelevant.

        I’m not saying that a person cloned from a stem-cell would “not be a person.” I’m saying that stem cells themselves are not people, and it is irrational and incorrect to speak of them as though they were, regardless of what their potential may be under the right conditions.

        And, sperm, eggs…ditto.

        • Leo

          I see we’re all rested and ready to go at it again…and perhaps rambly and disjointed does describe my being depressed/frustrated, Mr. X! Truly there is a difference between sperm/eggs, stem cells and living people…whether caused cultivated…pick a method; my bad for trying to group all body parts together: The point I was trying to make is; Who can place a price on human life or their “spare-parts” ? If saying I won’t does make me wrong, then fine. As for “hatemongering idiot”…I simply turned those words around in chance you’d see that not everyone believes that egg/sperm should be sold, nor is homosexuality the norm: 2-13% isn’t actually the norm is it? That would be like saying 14% of atheists is the norm…I know I’m not surrounded by either so convincing a majority seems unlikely…not unvoiced idiot.

          I thought you’d say something about regulating your cum, Mr. X: A waiver would easily solve all your issues, but to simply think that sperm/eggs/stem cells are ethically irrelevant to life? Come on. You say “given the chance” like it’s a farmers choice, I’m sure your high on the pro-abortion side of life? I say “allowed” as in allowed to follow the natural course of sexual reproduction; something that is very far from cloned humans or artificially conceived persons. (How can you say that it’s ethically irrelevant?)

          I’ll accept “cultural-conservative” if that means standing up for my rights. I won’t accept “fascist imbecile” because I’m not forcing anyone to think or follow my morals

  • Scott

    I have been saying this same thing for a long time. I remember John Stossel talked about this once. If we genetically alter corn to be immune to pests then zomg it’s not natural. But guess what? Corn in it’s current form is not natural anyways! Thru years of selective breeding we have caused corn, wheat, rice, fruits and vegetables to grow to enormous sizes and to be incredibly ripe in comparison to the wild version of the plants.

    God forbid we bypass selective breeding and just go ahead and genetically alter it so it doesn’t take hundreds of years to make them immune to pests. I’d rather have them immune to pests than to have pesticide on my food.

    I worked at Amway’s call center during the past year and what angered me is that the company had to give into this shit as well as Kosher and Halal bullshit to sell their Nutrilite product line (nutritional supplements) because god forbid we have a beef or pork based capsule. I had calls about this crap and I had to explain this stuff to our distributors.

    This is another example of how religion is bad for society, it slows down our evolution of food products and our society will be dealing with this organic food nonsense for years before people progress past it.

  • Scott

    You know what, I still have more to say now that I read some more.

    “Oh, and while you are at it you might as well strip naked (clothes don’t grow on trees you know) and start running around in the sun and see how long it takes you to get skin cancer.”

    I want to add to this point. If you are of European origin, then you are going to have white skin that was designed for high latitudes (much of Europe is much farther north than the US) that is designed to take advantage of the low amount of sunlight to get enough vitamin D.

    What had happened here is that our ancestors in Africa waltzed into Europe with fire (unnatural for us to control) and wore furs so they could handle the cold. Europe was a tundra at the time. We replaced the Neanderthals and the rest of the ice age didn’t last long enough for us to evolve our bodies to be well adapted to the cold like Neanderthals were. But we did get the white skin and a high level of the hair color and eye color diversity.

    The hair and eye color diversity is allegedly due to females outnumbering males. There wasn’t much foraging to due so the burden of getting food was on the hunters which their society designated to be the men. So the women needed to compete heavily for men to reproduce. Guys are very visual when selecting a mate (and still are today). If one woman was blonde and the rest were dark haired, she was going to be selected to be a mate. Eventually many blondes and brunettes were around so traits like red hair showed up to create even more ways for a woman to distinguish herself. Same thing happened with eye color. I found a study of this somewhere online and found it interesting and wanted to share.

    Anyhow, back to the main topic. If you are of European Origin, you cannot even live naturally anymore. Our bodies adapted to living in a cold environment with the assumption we had cloths, fire, hunting dogs, the tools to hunt, and giant extinct animal to hunt. If we lived in a southern warmer climate that in which our mostly hairless bodies are adapted to we’d get sunburned due to the lack of darker skin.

    The only people who are close to natural are the natives to the African Savanna and even they still wear cloths (usually bright red or blue) and before Europeans came, all they did was raise cattle to survive (trade with the north I assume got them cattle) instead of hunting except for the tradition for a young male to kill a lion as part of becoming a man. Nowadays they have less space for cattle so they do more agriculture now.

    Hell, we’ve had co-evolution with animals to take over harsh biomes such as 100% of dromedary camels being domesticated now to specifically help us with desert life or the domestic reindeer used to help us with tundra life (reindeer can eat moss and lichen and make milk or we can slaughter then and use them as beasts of burden). Hell, we did this to wolves (dogs), boars (pigs), auroch or gaur (one of them was the ancestor to cattle), wild cats, horses, asses, bactrian camels, water buffalo, ferrets, llama, sheep & goats (came from some mountain antelope species), turkeys (and we didn’t get these until we hit up North America), Red junglefowl (chickens), guinea pigs (cavys that were breed for food in South America) and today we adding bison and white-tailed deer to the list as well as the long list of exotic pets. We have entire guilds of animals that support us.

    Enough random facts, the point is that we are all now unnatural and we’ve developed most natural habitats into unnatural land known as farms, ranches, houses, yards, urban areas. Habitats that dis-include many other animals. If you want to be natural, you should promote genetically altered food so we need less farm space and pesticides so we don’t have to alter every single habitat we touch and drive other animals into extinction in favor of us and our domesticated friends.

  • Monica

    The only thing is that some of the stuff that Monsanto does is just wrong. But the only thing when it comes to food, if i don’t understand whats in it. I don’t eat it. I only eat something with hydrogenated oils or nitrites and stuff probably once a week, but other than that I try to avoid stuff I don’t understand. If I can understand whats in it. Then by all means serve it up.

  • Bobby Goldfish

    To me there are many “wrongs” and “rights” here rather than naturals and un-naturals. As long as we don’t elevate our species above all other living (plants and animals) and non-living things (rocks) on this earth nothing can ever be un-natural, either we’re talking about beer cans, plastic bags or spider webs. I realise that this thread becomes far more uninteresting with such an approach to the topic, so I won’t tell you to stop discussing moral issues as they are somewhat important (sometimes), but I think that humans need to stop placing themselves “outside” nature. We are, in fact, a major part of it and with the ability to alter it.