Three Definitions of "Natural"

Twisted building - Omotesando, June 2013 (Enlarge)

Is anything natural? What does the word "natural" mean, anyway? Here are three different definitions:

1. The natural is what would be if humanity never existed. The opposite is "artificial." The artificial is whatever was caused by humanity.

2. The natural is whatever seems to help achieve the root goal of species survival. The opposite is "depraved." People who do depraved things are probably headed for an evolutionary dead end.

3. The natural is everything caused by physical forces, as opposed to things caused by magic or demons. The opposite is "supernatural." Everything is natural according to this definition, since the supernatural doesn't exist at all.

Few things on Earth are natural in the first sense, since humanity really does exist and since our influence has extended to all corners of the planet. Human activities even influence the weather, so it's pretty hard to find something on Earth that's entirely natural. Maybe there are natural things deep beneath the Earth's surface. In any case, if you look at a mountain, for example, and say that it's part of nature, you're referring to those aspects of the mountain not shaped by human beings.

In outer space it's easy to find natural things. Human influence has barely extended very far at all. We've just put a few artificial things on the Moon and Mars, and we've just sent a few artificial satellites to other planets or out to the edge of our solar system. Our radio signals have traveled some 100 light years, but their influence might be insignificant. We don't know for sure.

Well, maybe we can make a further distinction here between things that are drastically artificial and other things that are just minimally artificial. Drastically artificial things were made on purpose by humans, or else they are the immediate and direct results of purposeful human action. Minimally artificial things are those that humanity has influenced indirectly and inadvertently. So computers are drastically artificial, but the ozone hole is minimally artificial.

This way, we can recognize various degrees of naturalness, and it is no longer a simple yes-or-no question. Instead of asking whether something is natural, we should ask how natural it is. And what we mean in this case is how much conscious human effort was involved in causing that thing.

As for the second definition above, this is clearly a subjective opinion because no one knows for sure what actions will ultimately help or hinder us in our pursuit of the root goal. Perhaps we shouldn't even use this definition of "natural" since it is laden with emotional, moralistic baggage. On the other hand, I want to have this definition handy in order to understand what people mean when they say homosexuality, for example, is unnatural. What they mean is that they think homosexuality makes you less likely to pass on your genes to future generations.

Or at least that's what they should mean, if they're smart and honest people. Unfortunately it's true that many people call unnatural anything different from what they personally are used to. This is clearly a misuse of the word.

By the way, if someone says homosexuality is unnatural, I think there are various ways for a homosexual person to respond.

1. They could say it isn't unnatural, because homosexuality is really just a different strategy for transmitting your genes through nieces and nephews. The homosexual strategy enhances overall gene transmission.

2. They could say it isn't unnatural in terms of memes, even if it really is unnatural in terms of genes. And they could argue that genes don't matter anymore. Memes are what really count in this modern technological world.

3. They could agree that it's unnatural but say they can't help it. Infertility is also unnatural, but we no longer demonize those afflicted with infertility. Therefore, if homosexuality is a disability, we should offer sympathy rather than recrimination.

Depending on the definition, we could say everything is natural or nothing is natural. According to definition (1), nothing is natural, or at least nothing we really care about. According to definition (3), everything is natural. Wow, that's the opposite. This shows how important it is for people to agree on the definitions of words when discussing philosophical things.

On the other hand, you might consider that definitions (1) and (3) are not opposites but actually the same! That's the case when we think of people as having a spiritual soul, which would make everything people do a kind of supernatural thing, caused by our immaterial spirits acting in the material world. Or also, you might consider that people are really demons deep down. Thus, it's the same thing when people do something and when other demons do things.

I think all three definitions of "natural" are kind of mundane. Natural is a synonym for "normal" in each case, and the opposite is special in some way, usually with a somewhat bad connotation. The cool thing is that these antonyms give me a kind of eerie, fantasy feeling or also a science fiction feeling. If you want to write an amazing story, you don't want it to be natural and normal, but you want it to be artificial, depraved and supernatural! You want it to be organic, iconoclastic and paranormal. That would make your story cool and interesting.

There's such a thing as the naturalistic fallacy, although people commonly misunderstand it. For example, people who feel disgusted about homosexuality might say homosexuality is unnatural and therefore bad. Others might say that's the naturalistic fallacy, but those others are actually wrong.

See, the homophobe is using meaning #2 here and claiming that homosexuality hinders you in transmitting your genes to the next generation. This claim might be right! We aren't sure, of course, but we can't simply say the homophobe is using a fallacy.

Maybe it's a fallacy to assume that your own gut feelings are always right. But that's not what the naturalistic fallacy really says, according to the philosopher G.E. Moore.

According to Moore, you can't be a moral realist, on the one hand, and then also define the good in terms of material or physical things. That's what the naturalistic fallacy really is.

The easy way to escape the naturalistic fallacy is to deny moral realism! In other words, you can deny that some "spirit of good" exists out there in the universe independent of our material circumstances here on Earth. That's my position.

Instead of an immaterial spirit of good, like God or whatever, I define the good in terms of the physical state toward which things are inexorably moving. It's like a river flowing. For a river, the good means flowing toward the sea, and evil means anything that hinders the river's smooth flow.