Naturally good for you
Main article is flawed. Written with straw man argument, etc
The article has logical fallacies in it. No natural food company is suggesting to put natural toxins, natural poop into foods. Thus the article is based on straw man arguments, etc. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
If we accept that "a chemical company's toxic waste is completely natural"
- What the heck are you talking about? Have you even understood this page?Nitrato de Chile (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Nitrato de Chile
Flawed logic, few people accept that "a chemical company's toxic waste is natural"
Your argument is totally flawed. Toxic waste is often from toxic plants that do not use organic, naturally occurring products in their production/manufacturing processes. For your flawed argument to not be so flawed you'd have to utilize a manufacturing plant that uses organic, natural, non-artificial products/ items and then the output would be valid in such an argument. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Could you give an example of such a wholly-natural, organic manufacturing process?Hubert (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
"In fact the only way you may be able to survive some of these many natural baddies or at least have quality of life improvements is through the intervention of "unnatural" things like modern medicine for diseases, sunscreen for UV light, a coat if you're cold, selectively bred fruit for scrumptiousness, shampoo / soap / hand sanitizer when you're dirty, a basement during a tornado, a pressurized diving suit if you're exploring underwater, a fridge as a middle finger for mold, a fly swatter if a mosquito is really ticking you off, and so many more nice artificial interventions."
I think some of the recent changes to this sentence a) make it read/flow poorly, b) don't follow the section's dedication to dangerous or deadly natural occurrences and the "artificial" prevention of it, and c) strawmans the position of nature-woo-advocates.
Following on from deadly/dangerous natural occurrences, it does not really make sense to discuss things that primarily affect quality of life, especially so mildly as a fly swat. Fridge, shampoo, soap, hand sanitizer, diving suit, scrumptious fruit/food also fall under QoL. You could consider adding another section to discuss how artificial things have clearly improved QoL.
Nature-woo-advocates will generally accept / advocate for items made from natural materials, which could include a coat, shampoo/soap, etc. Similarly for selectively-bred fruit; that may be considered a natural process, unlike GM food.
Proposed change below, not happy with it either so open to your comment.
"In fact the only way you might be able to survive some of these many natural baddies is through the "unnatural" intervention of science and technology; including hospitals, modern medicine, engineering and architecture."
- The list is supposed to be lengthy with concrete examples to really drive the point how ludicrous to be some sort of nature adherent when nature is so thoroughly awful. If nature woo advocates want particular "batural" products, then the question comes again, the product itself is still "unnatural". At onne point when does it become more or less natural? Selective breeding isn't more "natural" than "GM"; it just takes more steps. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 14:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, I generally agree. The nature woo position is inherently contradictory to the definition "nature", which excludes humans and anything created by mankind. But it's not really fair to strawman the nature woo position, which generally advocates that products derived primarily from products of nature, and not modern science and technology, are "natural". I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that humans aren't inherently separate from nature. A few million years ago there was nothing that differentiated us from our environment. Anything we created; stone tools, for example, should be considered natural. We have not significantly evolved as a species since then; what has changed is our civilization, and associated science and technology. Artificial selection, for example, has been done for literally millions of years, prior to any sort of technological advancements, though not necessarily intentionally. (There are convincing theories about how the domestication of wheat, for example, was a process that happened accidentally and was a major influence in early human settlement.) Artificial selection doesn't require any technological influences; it's simply an extension of natural selection. The nature woo perspective is generally that once you involve modern technological processes a product is no longer "natural". Of course, there are plenty of bullshit double standards since literally everything today is heavily influenced by technology.Kauri0.o (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)