The appeal to nature, also referred to as the naturalistic fallacy, is the increasingly marketable logical fallacy which assumes that “A is natural and is therefore good while B is unnatural or artificial and is therefore bad.” While not a pseudoscience itself, the naturalistic fallacy forms the foundation of many popular contemporary and historical pseudosciences including the organic/natural/free range food movement and the rising tide of traditional and herbal medicines and supplements inundating consumers, but this stumbling block in critical thinking can also be cited as a source of justification for detoxification crazes and even homophobia.The attractiveness of this way of thought comes from privileged, urban societies who are themselves largely removed from nature. This lack of a relationship with the natural world is used as a scapegoat on which to place the ills of that particular society, resulting in the desire to return to a more “natural” way of life and an idealized way of living in harmony with nature. One way that people feel they can accomplish this is by turning to consumer goods which have been labeled “natural”, “organic”, or “traditional”, seeing them as inherently superior to “in-organic” or “un-natural” products despite the amorphous nature of those terms.
The movements mentioned above are pseudoscientific because they rely primarily on marketing jargon defined in terms of law rather than of science, which may also be different from the broader public understanding of the term. For example, “free range” is often a label attached to kinds of meat, particularly chicken, which defines it from “non-free range” meats, often under the assumption that “free range” meat is more natural and therefore better tasting or healthier for the consumer and the environment. The reality is that simply providing caged chicken with a windowed enclosure is enough to legally warrant the “free-range” distinction and, usually, a higher price tag.
Companies have latched onto the “natural” bandwagon in droves, often creating entirely new lines of products with “natural”, and lately "green", labels. For example, the Whole Foods supermarket chain specifically caters to seekers of so-called natural products, marketing itself as "Selling the highest quality natural and organic products". Even widely available, mainstream brands like Kellogs have introduced organic labeled varieties of popular breakfast cereals including Frosted Mini Wheats, Raisin Bran, and Rice Krispies.
In an alarming trend, practitioners and advocates of so-called natural medicine have also prospered with the growth of the naturalistic movement. After losing his wife to breast cancer, YouTube user Seth Aronsen launched a video campaign lashing out at modern breast cancer treatments in which he champions laughter, exposure sunshine, meditation, visualization, vitamin supplements, "healthy food & herbs", "exercise & massage", rest, relaxation, and water over what are portrayed as excessively expensive, needlessly painful, and ultimately unhelpful chemotherapy treatments.
However, it is not the case that all natural things are necessarily better than artificial things, for example, hurricanes, poison ivy, mercury, sunburns, cancer, E. Coli, Ebola, bad breath, and dying from childbirth are all very natural things that our modern world attempts to insulate itself from. While houses, shoes, indoor heating/cooling/plumbing, refrigeration, airplanes, computers, and stoves are all very artificial inventions of humanity yet we nearly define our modern society in terms of their use.
-Nick
4 comments:
While a agree with you about alternative medicine, I find that a lot of natural food is actually on the level.
I think that the appeal of free-range meats is that the animals are (in theory) treated better. Maybe some people think it improves the meat somehow, but I thought it was more of a moral issue. I'd rather support companies that treat their animals well.
Also, although they sell a lot of stupid shit at places like whole foods, a lot of it is actually healthier or tastier. For example, products made with sugar taste better than those made with high fructose corn syrup, and product made with plant oils and whole wheat flour are more healthy than those made with partially hydrogenated oils and bleached flour.
That being said, organic food is bullshit.
I love it when people point at genetically modified (GM) food and cry foul. They call it "Frankenfood", unnatural and stir up a bunch of shit for nothing.
So few of them know that they consume GM food every day. They don't understand that by harvesting and pollinating only certain crops with desirable traits we have modified the gene pool. I find "The Atheist's Nightmare" clip doubly hilarious because Ray Comfort has no clue that God actually did NOT make the banana he holds in his hands. Science did.
I agree with you to an extent, Nick. Free range beef is definitely better than standard beef, so long as it really is free range, and the animal is allowed to graze rather than being force-fed corn its whole life. When I say "better" I mean better in the taste and better for the animal. There are all kinds of horrible digestive side effects (for the cows, not for us) that come from feeding cows corn when they evolved to eat grass. With that said, I agree that it is utter bullshit that producers can get away with calling things "free range" which are borderline at best.
Yeah, GM food is such a laughable issue in most instances. Humans have been genetically modifying agriculture and livestock for as long as farming and husbandry have existed. Does it really matter if we are selecting for preferable traits through cross pollination or by genetic manipulation in a lab? No. But the former, being more "natural", is viewed as preferable to the latter.
I'm also not inherently opposed to farming practices which are "better" for the environment, the problem is that with organically grown foods, the process is actually harder on the environment. It is a less efficient use of land which leads to far lower yields and higher prices. Instead of using "synthetic" pesticides organic farmers will use substances which include heavy metals and chemicals that are arguably more harmful than evil pesticides. Besides, the quality and taste of organic foods is overwhelmingly similar to "regular" food, albeit with a much higher price tag.
Man, I am worn out. I hope that makes sense!
Post a Comment