It’s Natural
But Is It Really Better?
By Daniel Muniz

The word “natural” seems to be attached to so many products that we currently use today. And when pertaining to health and to the environment, “natural” has a very specific emotive meaning which almost points to a kind of moral obligation. Also for some people, it has nearly become an obsession to not only eat foodstuff that is natural, but to purchase environmentally friendly products that are entirely or mostly natural in origin.

But just because something is natural, does it automatically mean that it is healthier, safer, and better than something that is artificially unnatural?

And as the naďve and the idealistic have learned the hard way, just because something is natural does not in any way mean that is it is good for you.

Years ago there was a middle school age girl from my hometown of San Antonio who had gone on a hiking trip to a huge nature preserve. She picked up a hemlock plant and ate it. After all, it is natural and therefore it must be good. She died. This natural plant in its natural habitat killed her. The local newspaper reported how her mother called her “my little tree hugger” since she was so devoted to the environment.

Well, the environment killed this little tree hugger.

The big problem with environmentalists, naturopaths, and health nuts is that they love the environment and nature more than they love science. This fixation can be dangerous or have unintended consequences that can ultimately be unhealthy or even harmful to the environment.

Unfortunately, this blind and obsessive enthusiasm for nature and for “natural” products and services creates a kind of knee-jerk mentality that replaces critical thinking and rational thought. But more disturbingly is that there is a profound lack of even a basic understanding of science and of how our physical universe really works. Instead, it has been replaced by a mythology of our natural world that is mostly Luddite in origin which is not only non-scientific but stridently anti-scientific in its application.

It has also created a huge and growing market of suckers that commercial enterprises and numerous other hucksters have already exploited. Incidentally, there are now a lot of companies that have these supposedly “green” credentials that are seeking to influence public opinion with their nefarious products because people have thrown objectivity out the window. Ethanol is one good example.

In fact, without any thinking, all that becomes important is that something is natural. It is entirely irrelevant if it is economically inefficient, ineffective, or even dangerous.

In addition, these people also have a warped philosophical view of the physical universe.

For example, the inverse of natural is unnatural. The implication is that anything that is artificial or manmade must be morally wrong. Environmentalists are eager to point out the many basic facets of our modern civilization that they disapprove of because of how it tinkers with the ecology. So doing something that is “supposedly” environmentally friendly or natural is morally good and ethically superior to doing something that is unnatural.

But there is only so far that this viewpoint can be taken to before it becomes absurd.

For instance, gopher holes and bird nests are natural but a house that a human built and lives in is unnatural because it takes raw materials from a natural habitat to construct it and a polluting energy source to power it. Perhaps the only way to be completely natural is to live in a cave. So in essence, our modern civilization is very unnatural and for the radical environmentalists, the human race in its present modern form is also unnatural.

But the stunning technological achievements of the past century are absolutely breathtaking. Our medical treatments, our food supply, and so many other “unnatural” but revolutionary innovations have saved countless lives and more than doubled our life spans while dramatically increasing the quality of life.

And regardless of their flaws and limitations, these artificially unnatural inventions and breakthroughs have tremendously improved the human race.

Of course nearly all the environmentalists, naturopaths, and health nuts won’t go as far as to live in a cave without electricity and cable television or deny medical treatment in an emergency room. However, they are very much willing to take some extreme positions that are devoid of science in order to live a better life and to save the planet.

I personally don’t mind the zeal to live in harmony with nature but what I do object to is when scientific understanding of our physical universe is replaced with pseudo-science (or for some, their spirituality) of nature and then is imposed on the rest of us.

It is time for more people to be skeptical when they are presented with anything that is supposedly natural. Just because something is natural doesn’t mean it is better and morally superior. Likewise, just because something is manmade or unnatural does not necessarily mean that it must be immoral. It is imperative to ask questions about whether or not such fanciful claims have been scientifically and rigorously tested because the moment that the public stops asking questions and stops thinking, it opens itself up to all kinds of scams and flimflam artists.

Any opinions or views expressed herein belong solely to the author and does not represent any employer, organization, political party, governmental agency, or any other entity and do not necessarily reflect the views of the site owner or its participants.