Appeal to nature

[Masterhawk]

Sometimes, you'll hear something being judged by how natural it is. Many new agers will tell you that the best things are natural. They may suggest a return to organic foods and natural medicine.

The problem with this argument is that there are plenty of stuff that's natural which isn't good for you and vice versa. There are various chemicals in vaccines and medicine that we take. The thing worth noting about them is that all of the various ingredients are in a controlled amount. Plant-based medicine can vary a bit and usually has multiple active chemicals, making effects less predictable. There are plenty of stuff that's completely natural which can be quite deadly. Many animals such as jellyfish and pufferfish have toxins within their body which can make eating them fatal. There are also various mushrooms which are poisonous. We need sunlight as a source of vitamin D but too much of it can cause sunburn and even skin cancer.

This also falls into arguments that gene editing and cloning are wrong because it's "playing God". Such arguments leave out the fact that humans have been selectively breeding crops and dogs for thousands of years and that genetically modifying crops is simply taking a shortcut. For some reason, this is only applied to organic material like plants, animals, and humans and not building material.

 

[soylentgreen]

Sometimes, you'll hear something being judged by how natural it is. Many new agers will tell you that the best things are natural. They may suggest a return to organic foods and natural medicine.

This also falls into arguments that gene editing and cloning are wrong because it's "playing God". Such arguments leave out the fact that humans have been selectively breeding crops and dogs for thousands of years and that genetically modifying crops is simply taking a shortcut. For some reason, this is only applied to organic material like plants, animals, and humans and not building material.

While I agree that that argument is not a good one I could also point out that it is an intentionally bad one told to cover over actual issues with gm. Which is that the production of gm is legally owned by the business that created it. Which also includes any future crops contaminated with gm spores or pollen. And after a few years there will not be any natural food plants just gm ones. Because there is no way of stopping natural selection.

 

[ataraxia]

Anytime you put a Band-Aid on a cut, or wear clothing, or turn on the air conditioner, you’re messing with nature. I think that’s OK. in fact, the ability to understand and manipulate nature like that is what has put out species at the apex of the animal kingdom today.

 

[Masterhawk]

While I agree that that argument is not a good one I could also point out that it is an intentionally bad one told to cover over actual issues with gm. Which is that the production of gm is legally owned by the business that created it. Which also includes any future crops contaminated with gm spores or pollen. And after a few years there will not be any natural food plants just gm ones. Because there is no way of stopping natural selection.

There are many GMO arguments that center around Monsanto rather than the genetically modified crops like how it's being patented. I was specifically speaking to people who opposed GMOs on the basis that they are unnatural.

 

[soylentgreen]

There are many GMO arguments that center around Monsanto rather than the genetically modified crops like how it's being patented. I was specifically speaking to people who opposed GMOs on the basis that they are unnatural.

I do understand that you wish to debate whether gm is natural. To that it would all depend on how we interpret what is natural. And at what point something becomes unnatural.

The gm itself does not get debated in any way other than context.

But my real problem with it all is that it is a distraction from dealing with the real problems of gm by focusing on a subjective opinion as nature.

 

[Masterhawk]

I do understand that you wish to debate whether gm is natural. To that it would all depend on how we interpret what is natural. And at what point something becomes unnatural.

The gm itself does not get debated in any way other than context.

But my real problem with it all is that it is a distraction from dealing with the real problems of gm by focusing on a subjective opinion as nature.

I never said that I wanted to debate whether GM is natural. Rather, I was mentioning it as an example.

 

[soylentgreen]

I never said that I wanted to debate whether GM is natural. Rather, I was mentioning it as an example.

It is a poor example of a distraction. Gm is more a political/business problem rather than a discussion in science. A good example of its harm is happening in india where the government is siding with corporate farming against small share farmers.