When did 'chemical' become a bad word?
Replies
-
My daughter won't eat hydrogenated oils (margarine). She uses butter. She isn't terribly picky but she does make choices. I can't remember if there is anything else. If people were specific about what chemicals/chemical processes they won't eat there would be less confusion.
Eh... I don't eat margarine either... but it's because I like the taste of butter better...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »richardheath wrote: »Labeling chemicals (as in added, or "man-made") as bad is part of the Naturalistic Fallacy: the idea that natural = good and unnatural = bad.
Couple of problems with this.
(1) Natural things, such as arsenic or digitoxin can most definitely be "bad" (in the sense that they will kill you).
(2) Humans are part of nature. We are not some supernatural creature. Therefore, whatever we make is actually also part of nature.
(3) Man-made chemicals are indistinguishable from their naturally occurring forms. Fructose made in the lab is the same as Fructose from a ripe heirloom fruit. Penicillin from a lab is the same as secreted by the Penicillium mold.
(4) Inanimate objects do have a moral sense, and so cannot be "good" or "bad". We have to take them in context and dosage. That digitoxin can be used to treat cancer (in a very carefully controlled dosage, which is easier done with a highly purified "unnatural" form than by feeding the patient foxgloves).
I think if you look up the definition of the word "nature", you'll find not everything above is true.
I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.0 -
Chemicals became the enemy right around the same time that processing did. As if canning, freezing, dehydrating, and homogenizing were not processes.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I like the Never foods they eat in Hook. That'd be a great way to lose weight. Except that one kid stays fat....
0 -
My daughter won't eat hydrogenated oils (margarine). She uses butter. She isn't terribly picky but she does make choices. I can't remember if there is anything else. If people were specific about what chemicals/chemical processes they won't eat there would be less confusion.
Eh... I don't eat margarine either... but it's because I like the taste of butter better...
I like butter better, too, but, for her it is specifically because of the trans fats.0 -
My daughter won't eat hydrogenated oils (margarine). She uses butter. She isn't terribly picky but she does make choices. I can't remember if there is anything else. If people were specific about what chemicals/chemical processes they won't eat there would be less confusion.
Eh... I don't eat margarine either... but it's because I like the taste of butter better...
I like butter better, too, but, for her it is specifically because of the trans fats.
With all the advent of trans fat awareness, there are tons of spreads that don't have trans fats in them. Smart balance doesn't. Real butter is definitely better than any spread anyway.0 -
richardheath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »richardheath wrote: »Labeling chemicals (as in added, or "man-made") as bad is part of the Naturalistic Fallacy: the idea that natural = good and unnatural = bad.
Couple of problems with this.
(1) Natural things, such as arsenic or digitoxin can most definitely be "bad" (in the sense that they will kill you).
(2) Humans are part of nature. We are not some supernatural creature. Therefore, whatever we make is actually also part of nature.
(3) Man-made chemicals are indistinguishable from their naturally occurring forms. Fructose made in the lab is the same as Fructose from a ripe heirloom fruit. Penicillin from a lab is the same as secreted by the Penicillium mold.
(4) Inanimate objects do have a moral sense, and so cannot be "good" or "bad". We have to take them in context and dosage. That digitoxin can be used to treat cancer (in a very carefully controlled dosage, which is easier done with a highly purified "unnatural" form than by feeding the patient foxgloves).
I think if you look up the definition of the word "nature", you'll find not everything above is true.
I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.
Nature is the world outside of man. Nothing man-made is natural. Why? Because that's what the words mean. You can suggest an alternate definition, but unless it becomes the official definition it's just a misuse of the word. Which is kind of funny in this thread.
0 -
richardheath wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »
Everybody on here is using the belief one.
Especially those who believe they are using the scientific one.
How about the Webster's dictionary definition?
1: of, relating to, used in, or produced by chemistry or the phenomena of chemistry <chemical reactions>
Exactly proves the point - your source provides numerous definitions, yet you only chose to share the ONE that is most closely aligned with your BELIEF.
Bingo bango bongo.
Lots of enzymes catalyzing chemical reactions in your cells right now, converting one group of chemicals to another group of chemicals. Chemistry isn't just something that happens in test tubes.
Apparently the message isn't getting through....
For that to be a strawman, I would have to be taking something you didn't say and attack that. Did I misrepresent anything you said? (I may well have misunderstood, but that's not a strawman).
0 -
My daughter won't eat hydrogenated oils (margarine). She uses butter. She isn't terribly picky but she does make choices. I can't remember if there is anything else. If people were specific about what chemicals/chemical processes they won't eat there would be less confusion.
Eh... I don't eat margarine either... but it's because I like the taste of butter better...
I like butter better, too, but, for her it is specifically because of the trans fats.
Not all hydrogenated oils contain trans fat. Fully hydrogenated oils do not, partially hydrogenated oils do.0 -
I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.
nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
0 -
richardheath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »richardheath wrote: »Labeling chemicals (as in added, or "man-made") as bad is part of the Naturalistic Fallacy: the idea that natural = good and unnatural = bad.
Couple of problems with this.
(1) Natural things, such as arsenic or digitoxin can most definitely be "bad" (in the sense that they will kill you).
(2) Humans are part of nature. We are not some supernatural creature. Therefore, whatever we make is actually also part of nature.
(3) Man-made chemicals are indistinguishable from their naturally occurring forms. Fructose made in the lab is the same as Fructose from a ripe heirloom fruit. Penicillin from a lab is the same as secreted by the Penicillium mold.
(4) Inanimate objects do have a moral sense, and so cannot be "good" or "bad". We have to take them in context and dosage. That digitoxin can be used to treat cancer (in a very carefully controlled dosage, which is easier done with a highly purified "unnatural" form than by feeding the patient foxgloves).
I think if you look up the definition of the word "nature", you'll find not everything above is true.
I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.
Now you are just arguing semantics. Get back on point, which is that there is a difference between 'natural' and 'man-made'. A path in the woods made by traveling animals is natural; a blacktop highway is manmade. See the difference? Now stop it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »My daughter won't eat hydrogenated oils (margarine). She uses butter. She isn't terribly picky but she does make choices. I can't remember if there is anything else. If people were specific about what chemicals/chemical processes they won't eat there would be less confusion.
Eh... I don't eat margarine either... but it's because I like the taste of butter better...
I like butter better, too, but, for her it is specifically because of the trans fats.
Not all hydrogenated oils contain trans fat. Fully hydrogenated oils do not, partially hydrogenated oils do.
thanks, maybe I just meant the partially hydrogenated ones. sorry I went off-track.
I agree with the OP. I just think the people who say they don't want chemicals in their food could be more specific about what types of chemicals0 -
richardheath wrote: »richardheath wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »
Everybody on here is using the belief one.
Especially those who believe they are using the scientific one.
How about the Webster's dictionary definition?
1: of, relating to, used in, or produced by chemistry or the phenomena of chemistry <chemical reactions>
Exactly proves the point - your source provides numerous definitions, yet you only chose to share the ONE that is most closely aligned with your BELIEF.
Bingo bango bongo.
Lots of enzymes catalyzing chemical reactions in your cells right now, converting one group of chemicals to another group of chemicals. Chemistry isn't just something that happens in test tubes.
Apparently the message isn't getting through....
For that to be a strawman, I would have to be taking something you didn't say and attack that. Did I misrepresent anything you said?
Nobody suggested that water isn't a "chemical" or that chemistry only "happens in test tubes".
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Yeah, it's a perception that man-made things are wrong, not "natural", yet most people won't know man-made (synthetic) chemical from one that already exists in nature, has been extracted from its natural form, then refined for greater effectiveness. Like Aspirin. check out how old this pain killer is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aspirin
Guar gum (it comes from beans) existed before people started using it as an ice cream thickener. What, you want thick creamy ice cream without the fat and calories from cream, can do!
How about Soy Lecithin? It's in everything. Harmful or Harmless: Soy Lecithin
I think these are the majority of "chemicals" we deal with today but most people are ignorant of the details and they're looking to be told what to do. There's a lot of money in fueling our national anxiety which leads us right up to the doorsetp of... Chemophobia.
Science is definitely not easy to keep up with even if you're a fan. Much like the stock market when you don't have any money in it - and it's in a foreign language. If you're relying on the 6 o'clock news just count the number of times they say "may", "might", or "could" in reference to developments. That just means someone's looking into it, nothing more, yet some company's going to jump all over it and have a product to fill that niche before you can blink. Or a counter product.
[Frankenstein voice] Chemicals bad!!! Natural (trademarked here) good!
Who's up for a cleanse?0 -
richardheath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »richardheath wrote: »Labeling chemicals (as in added, or "man-made") as bad is part of the Naturalistic Fallacy: the idea that natural = good and unnatural = bad.
Couple of problems with this.
(1) Natural things, such as arsenic or digitoxin can most definitely be "bad" (in the sense that they will kill you).
(2) Humans are part of nature. We are not some supernatural creature. Therefore, whatever we make is actually also part of nature.
(3) Man-made chemicals are indistinguishable from their naturally occurring forms. Fructose made in the lab is the same as Fructose from a ripe heirloom fruit. Penicillin from a lab is the same as secreted by the Penicillium mold.
(4) Inanimate objects do have a moral sense, and so cannot be "good" or "bad". We have to take them in context and dosage. That digitoxin can be used to treat cancer (in a very carefully controlled dosage, which is easier done with a highly purified "unnatural" form than by feeding the patient foxgloves).
I think if you look up the definition of the word "nature", you'll find not everything above is true.
I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.
Now you are just arguing semantics. Get back on point, which is that there is a difference between 'natural' and 'man-made'. A path in the woods made by traveling animals is natural; a blacktop highway is manmade. See the difference? Now stop it.
What if the animals that made the path in the wood were of the species Homo sapiens sapiens?
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »richardheath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »richardheath wrote: »Labeling chemicals (as in added, or "man-made") as bad is part of the Naturalistic Fallacy: the idea that natural = good and unnatural = bad.
Couple of problems with this.
(1) Natural things, such as arsenic or digitoxin can most definitely be "bad" (in the sense that they will kill you).
(2) Humans are part of nature. We are not some supernatural creature. Therefore, whatever we make is actually also part of nature.
(3) Man-made chemicals are indistinguishable from their naturally occurring forms. Fructose made in the lab is the same as Fructose from a ripe heirloom fruit. Penicillin from a lab is the same as secreted by the Penicillium mold.
(4) Inanimate objects do have a moral sense, and so cannot be "good" or "bad". We have to take them in context and dosage. That digitoxin can be used to treat cancer (in a very carefully controlled dosage, which is easier done with a highly purified "unnatural" form than by feeding the patient foxgloves).
I think if you look up the definition of the word "nature", you'll find not everything above is true.
I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.
Nature is the world outside of man. Nothing man-made is natural. Why? Because that's what the words mean. You can suggest an alternate definition, but unless it becomes the official definition it's just a misuse of the word. Which is kind of funny in this thread.
Pretty much every food you eat has been altered by man in some way. Before we got our grubby hands on them, "natural" corncobs were very small, apples were small, hard and sour, almonds were poisonous, sheep would attack you, and cows didn't have huge udders that produce far more milk than a calf could ever drink. Unless you are a hunter-gatherer, to a very large extent there are no "natural" foods anymore.
Even outside of our influence, nature isn't the elegant homeostatic system some people think it is. All species are constantly competing and evolving and extinction is a common occurrence. Dutch Elm Disease has destroyed most elm trees. European cave bears didn't survive the last Ice Age. Mammals ate dinosaur eggs. Countless plants, animals and single cell organisms have risen to prominence and than were out-competed by newer, better adapted organisms. Man is just the result of yet another species adapting to its ever changing environment.
There is no way to eat natural because nature itself is always changing and the very act of you being alive changes nature. The food you eat was produced by someone selecting one species to produce over another, and then systematically clearing land to produce that species. In the process, the existing species on the land were destroyed and the habitat was changed. Some organisms can adapt to that change. Others become marginalized or go extinct.0 -
Um, the dictionary?goddessofawesome wrote: »I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.
nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
So if I plant a tree, it's not natural?
Where'd you get that definition from?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural
And actually yes. If you transplant a tree it's not natural. Case in point, another definition:
growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
I suppose I should have known someone would nit-pick something as silly as the definition of natural.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
goddessofawesome wrote: »
Um, the dictionary?goddessofawesome wrote: »I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.
nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
So if I plant a tree, it's not natural?
Where'd you get that definition from?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural
And actually yes. If you transplant a tree it's not natural. Case in point, another definition:
growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
I suppose I should have known someone would nit-pick something as silly as the definition of natural.
Well then I think you've put this entire conversation to bed.
Congratulations everyone, you can all relax. Nothing you eat is natural. No matter how much you spend at Whole Foods. You're the same as the guy eating a Hungry Man microwaveable meal.
Man I LOVE the brownies in those!-1 -
FDA definition of natural foods (actually there is no definition but a guideline). I think there is leeway there for man made additives, no?
From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is 'natural' because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.
0 -
peter56765 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »richardheath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »richardheath wrote: »Labeling chemicals (as in added, or "man-made") as bad is part of the Naturalistic Fallacy: the idea that natural = good and unnatural = bad.
Couple of problems with this.
(1) Natural things, such as arsenic or digitoxin can most definitely be "bad" (in the sense that they will kill you).
(2) Humans are part of nature. We are not some supernatural creature. Therefore, whatever we make is actually also part of nature.
(3) Man-made chemicals are indistinguishable from their naturally occurring forms. Fructose made in the lab is the same as Fructose from a ripe heirloom fruit. Penicillin from a lab is the same as secreted by the Penicillium mold.
(4) Inanimate objects do have a moral sense, and so cannot be "good" or "bad". We have to take them in context and dosage. That digitoxin can be used to treat cancer (in a very carefully controlled dosage, which is easier done with a highly purified "unnatural" form than by feeding the patient foxgloves).
I think if you look up the definition of the word "nature", you'll find not everything above is true.
I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.
Nature is the world outside of man. Nothing man-made is natural. Why? Because that's what the words mean. You can suggest an alternate definition, but unless it becomes the official definition it's just a misuse of the word. Which is kind of funny in this thread.
Pretty much every food you eat has been altered by man in some way. Before we got our grubby hands on them, "natural" corncobs were very small, apples were small, hard and sour, almonds were poisonous, sheep would attack you, and cows didn't have huge udders that produce far more milk than a calf could ever drink. Unless you are a hunter-gatherer, to a very large extent there are no "natural" foods anymore.
Even outside of our influence, nature isn't the elegant homeostatic system some people think it is. All species are constantly competing and evolving and extinction is a common occurrence. Dutch Elm Disease has destroyed most elm trees. European cave bears didn't survive the last Ice Age. Mammals ate dinosaur eggs. Countless plants, animals and single cell organisms have risen to prominence and than were out-competed by newer, better adapted organisms. Man is just the result of yet another species adapting to its ever changing environment.
There is no way to eat natural because nature itself is always changing and the very act of you being alive changes nature. The food you eat was produced by someone selecting one species to produce over another, and then systematically clearing land to produce that species. In the process, the existing species on the land were destroyed and the habitat was changed. Some organisms can adapt to that change. Others become marginalized or go extinct.
Um, okay? None of that changes the meaning of the words nature or natural.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »richardheath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »richardheath wrote: »Labeling chemicals (as in added, or "man-made") as bad is part of the Naturalistic Fallacy: the idea that natural = good and unnatural = bad.
Couple of problems with this.
(1) Natural things, such as arsenic or digitoxin can most definitely be "bad" (in the sense that they will kill you).
(2) Humans are part of nature. We are not some supernatural creature. Therefore, whatever we make is actually also part of nature.
(3) Man-made chemicals are indistinguishable from their naturally occurring forms. Fructose made in the lab is the same as Fructose from a ripe heirloom fruit. Penicillin from a lab is the same as secreted by the Penicillium mold.
(4) Inanimate objects do have a moral sense, and so cannot be "good" or "bad". We have to take them in context and dosage. That digitoxin can be used to treat cancer (in a very carefully controlled dosage, which is easier done with a highly purified "unnatural" form than by feeding the patient foxgloves).
I think if you look up the definition of the word "nature", you'll find not everything above is true.
I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.
Nature is the world outside of man. Nothing man-made is natural. Why? Because that's what the words mean. You can suggest an alternate definition, but unless it becomes the official definition it's just a misuse of the word. Which is kind of funny in this thread.
Pretty much every food you eat has been altered by man in some way. Before we got our grubby hands on them, "natural" corncobs were very small, apples were small, hard and sour, almonds were poisonous, sheep would attack you, and cows didn't have huge udders that produce far more milk than a calf could ever drink. Unless you are a hunter-gatherer, to a very large extent there are no "natural" foods anymore.
Even outside of our influence, nature isn't the elegant homeostatic system some people think it is. All species are constantly competing and evolving and extinction is a common occurrence. Dutch Elm Disease has destroyed most elm trees. European cave bears didn't survive the last Ice Age. Mammals ate dinosaur eggs. Countless plants, animals and single cell organisms have risen to prominence and than were out-competed by newer, better adapted organisms. Man is just the result of yet another species adapting to its ever changing environment.
There is no way to eat natural because nature itself is always changing and the very act of you being alive changes nature. The food you eat was produced by someone selecting one species to produce over another, and then systematically clearing land to produce that species. In the process, the existing species on the land were destroyed and the habitat was changed. Some organisms can adapt to that change. Others become marginalized or go extinct.
Um, okay? None of that changes the meaning of the words nature or natural.
Context Lost.-1 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »
Um, the dictionary?goddessofawesome wrote: »I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.
nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
So if I plant a tree, it's not natural?
Where'd you get that definition from?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural
And actually yes. If you transplant a tree it's not natural. Case in point, another definition:
growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
I suppose I should have known someone would nit-pick something as silly as the definition of natural.
Well then I think you've put this entire conversation to bed.
Congratulations everyone, you can all relax. Nothing you eat is natural. No matter how much you spend at Whole Foods. You're the same as the guy eating a Hungry Man microwaveable meal.
Whole Foods where you spend $8 for a pound of "organic" strawberries when instead you could have gone to the local Kroger or Safeway and bought the same exact thing (brand and everything) for half the price...
0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »
Um, the dictionary?goddessofawesome wrote: »I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.
nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
So if I plant a tree, it's not natural?
Where'd you get that definition from?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural
And actually yes. If you transplant a tree it's not natural. Case in point, another definition:
growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
I suppose I should have known someone would nit-pick something as silly as the definition of natural.
Well then I think you've put this entire conversation to bed.
Congratulations everyone, you can all relax. Nothing you eat is natural. No matter how much you spend at Whole Foods. You're the same as the guy eating a Hungry Man microwaveable meal.
So, if I eat wild blackberries or crab apples, those are not natural?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »
Um, the dictionary?goddessofawesome wrote: »I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.
nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
So if I plant a tree, it's not natural?
Where'd you get that definition from?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural
And actually yes. If you transplant a tree it's not natural. Case in point, another definition:
growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
I suppose I should have known someone would nit-pick something as silly as the definition of natural.
Well then I think you've put this entire conversation to bed.
Congratulations everyone, you can all relax. Nothing you eat is natural. No matter how much you spend at Whole Foods. You're the same as the guy eating a Hungry Man microwaveable meal.
So, if I eat wild blackberries or crab apples, those are not natural?
Honestly?
Probably not. If it's edible (by which I mean tastes decent enough that you wouldn't spit it out), it's most likely either a cultivated variety that's run to seed, or a naturally occurring hybrid of one of those cultivated varieties.
You see, the interesting thing is that not only are the fruits and vegetables that humans have hybridized more tasty to humans ... they're often also more showy and tastier to animals, birds, and insects. So the pollen and the seeds are widely dispersed. I'm not sure you could find vegetables or fruit that are unaffected by human cultivation anymore.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »
Um, the dictionary?goddessofawesome wrote: »I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.
nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
So if I plant a tree, it's not natural?
Where'd you get that definition from?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural
And actually yes. If you transplant a tree it's not natural. Case in point, another definition:
growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
I suppose I should have known someone would nit-pick something as silly as the definition of natural.
Well then I think you've put this entire conversation to bed.
Congratulations everyone, you can all relax. Nothing you eat is natural. No matter how much you spend at Whole Foods. You're the same as the guy eating a Hungry Man microwaveable meal.
So, if I eat wild blackberries or crab apples, those are not natural?
Honestly?
Probably not. If it's edible (by which I mean tastes decent enough that you wouldn't spit it out), it's most likely either a cultivated variety that's run to seed, or a naturally occurring hybrid of one of those cultivated varieties.
You see, the interesting thing is that not only are the fruits and vegetables that humans have hybridized more tasty to humans ... they're often also more showy and tastier to animals, birds, and insects. So the pollen and the seeds are widely dispersed. I'm not sure you could find vegetables or fruit that are unaffected by human cultivation anymore.
Just off the top of my head, hucklberries and fiddleheads. Both can't be cultivated effectively, and wild stocks are where almost ALL commercial product comes from.
That's just off the top of my head.0 -
Even if I accept that "human-made" and "unnatural" are synonymous (which I'm not ready to concede, but let's move on), the other parts of my argument stand. Being made in a lab does not automatically mean that something is bad, anymore than being grown in a field means it is good.
But I will accept that what I called the naturalistic fallacy is in fact not. I should have said an appeal to nature instead.
From the Wiki page:General form of this type of argument:[2]
N is natural.
Therefore, N is good or right.
U is unnatural.
Therefore, U is bad or wrong.
In some contexts, the use of the terms of "nature" and "natural" can be vague, leading to unintended associations with other concepts. The word "natural" can also be a loaded term – much like the word "normal", in some contexts, it can carry an implicit value judgement. An appeal to nature would thus beg the question, because the conclusion is entailed by the premise.[2]
Opinions differ regarding appeal to nature in rational argument. Sometimes, it can be taken as a rule of thumb that admits some exceptions, but nonetheless proves to be of use in one or more specific topics, (or in general). As a rule of thumb, natural or unnatural facts provide presumptively reliable good or bad values, barring evidence to the contrary. Failure to consider such evidence commits a fallacy of accident under this view.[2][3]
Julian Baggini explains that "[E]ven if we can agree that some things are natural and some are not, what follows from this? The answer is: nothing. There is no factual reason to suppose that what is natural is good (or at least better) and what is unnatural is bad (or at least worse)."[4]
(my bolding--Ed)0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »
Um, the dictionary?goddessofawesome wrote: »I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.
nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
So if I plant a tree, it's not natural?
Where'd you get that definition from?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural
And actually yes. If you transplant a tree it's not natural. Case in point, another definition:
growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
I suppose I should have known someone would nit-pick something as silly as the definition of natural.
Well then I think you've put this entire conversation to bed.
Congratulations everyone, you can all relax. Nothing you eat is natural. No matter how much you spend at Whole Foods. You're the same as the guy eating a Hungry Man microwaveable meal.
So, if I eat wild blackberries or crab apples, those are not natural?
Honestly?
Probably not. If it's edible (by which I mean tastes decent enough that you wouldn't spit it out), it's most likely either a cultivated variety that's run to seed, or a naturally occurring hybrid of one of those cultivated varieties.
You see, the interesting thing is that not only are the fruits and vegetables that humans have hybridized more tasty to humans ... they're often also more showy and tastier to animals, birds, and insects. So the pollen and the seeds are widely dispersed. I'm not sure you could find vegetables or fruit that are unaffected by human cultivation anymore.
I'm not sure that makes them not natural. If a man-altered seed is naturally planted and grown for years, decades or even centuries, is it still not natural? Once tainted, is it never again part of nature? But it's an interesting discussion.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions