Naturally immune to stupidity

A heuristic to protect yourself against thought-leaders

I had the pleasure of listening to a horribly bad conversation between two of today’s ‘thought leaders’, as they are called. Slavoj Žižek, the Slovenian philosopher. And Noah Yuval Harari, the balding historian known from his best-seller ‘Sapiens.’ 

The title of the talk is “Should we trust nature more than ourselves?” Often, the argument is made that because something is natural, it is good. And because something is artificial, it is bad. People will deem a certain food more healthy because it is natural, and deem another food unhealthy, purely because it is made in a lab. We seem hard-wired to make this judgement. But is it really so, that something is good because it is natural, and that something is bad because it is artificial?

From the very beginning of the conversation, it is clear that both Harari and Žižek offer a clear ‘no’ to the question. It is not because things are natural that they are good. And in come the familiar arguments for why not everything natural is good. They mention certain diseases that have a natural origin. And they mention natural phenomena destructive to humanity; hurricanes, earthquakes, or asteroids. All of these things are natural, yet, they are clearly not good. And on the other hand, they say, there are all the wonders of human artifice; we have modern medicine, vaccines, the internet, cars. None of these things are natural, yet (most) deem them good. Throughout the conversation, their intent seems this; to convince you that thinking that natural = good is low-tier human thinking, and that if you are an intelligent person, you will realize that natural is more often bad, and artificial is more often good. 

It is indeed the case that, something being natural does not necessarily make it good. And it is indeed the case that, something being artificial does not necessarily make it evil. The problem is that, besides from making this modest claim, acceptable by any thinking individual, they use it in a very sneaky manner to claim that what is natural is more often bad, and that what is artificial is more often good. They do not merely say that the categories of natural or artificial don’t make something good or bad, and that it always comes down to specific cases, where every plant, medicine, technology, etc., has to be analysed in detail so as to see what is good. 

No, by stressing the lack of distinction between nature and artifice, they are saying that you should be suspicious of nature, and welcoming of artifice. The context is of course determined by our recent experience with covid. During the past few years, many people realized that very often, natural is better, and artificial measures of containment and vaccination have a history of making things that much worse.

Indeed, something being natural does not necessarily make it good. But who is saying this to you? Someone who wants to prevent you from picking a poisonous mushroom, or someone who wants to sell a vaccine to you? Someone who wants you to investigate the benefits of something in a case by case manner, or someone who wants you to put a chip in your brain? 

Harari and Zizek make the claim that ‘everything is natural’. As Harari puts it: ‘everything that is possible is natural’. In short, everything that can be done is natural. It is possible to make a new type of medicine? This makes it natural. It is possible to pollute the oceans with plastic? This makes it natural. In short, they want to abolish the distinction between natural and artificial. A familiar and worn-out claim, which again, is very true. If nature is another word for everything that exists, then indeed, everything is natural. If nature is another name for that from which all things arise, then indeed, everything is natural.

But again, you must ask yourself. Who is making this claim, the philosopher who wants to stress the interconnectedness of things, who wants to push metaphysics into new ground? Or the big-pharma executive who wants to tell you that his patented drug is as good as the plant from which it came? 

Who wants to abolish the distinction between nature and artifice? The poet who wants to show you how much you are a part of something bigger, or the WEF-futurist who wants to deceive you into medical tyranny?

Harari mentions that you cannot break the laws of nature, for nature has no laws. A law is defined simply as a line that you cannot cross, or you will be punished by him who has devised the law. I do not know in what world he lives. But in my experience it seems that nature does punish you, with diseases, pain, and other things, if you do not follow it. You eat a certain plant and get painfully sick, this is how nature tells you to follow its laws. You use your limbs in a way for which they aren’t fit, and in comes shoulder pain. Of course, you need to be able to listen to understand these laws.

If you are straying from what is good, the best thing to do is to convince people that there is no difference between good and evil. And likewise, if you are deviating from nature, the smartest thing to do is to convince people that there is no difference between nature and artifice. 

Mentioning all the horrible earthquakes, diseases, and other catastrophes nature has produced, Žižek makes the joke of calling nature a ‘dirty bitch.’ She is indeed, to those who do not listen to her.

The men claim that for ethics, the distinction between nature and artifice does not matter. Rather, what is good is what is beneficial for human growth, and what is bad is what inflicts suffering on humans. To a certain extent I agree, what I am bewildered by is their neglect of all the ways in which artifice has inflicted suffering. Think of all those who died because of medical malpractice, those who suffered horrible diseases because of pollution, and so on.

Philosophically speaking, it is extremely hard to make a distinction between nature and artifice. For all comes from nature. We humans, are biological beings. And our ‘artificial’ products, are the result of us as biological beings. Nothing escapes nature. 

But do not kid yourself. Everyone knows intuitively that a tree is more natural than a car. And everyone knows intuitively that herbal medicine is more natural than a vaccine. We seem hard-wired to make this distinction, even when philosophers tell us that everything is natural, or that everything is artificial.

Even those who deny this distinction the most, cannot help but speak in terms of this distinction. When we say that we go out into nature. What do we mean? When we say that the wound will heal naturally. What do we mean? 

We cannot help but make this distinction between nature and artifice. Is it the case that our instincts are stupid, and that we need the higher-level thinking of men like Žižek and Harari to enlighten us? Or is there perhaps some wisdom in our instincts, a natural capacity to distinguish the natural from the artificial, to prevent our thoughts from turning against our selves? A natural instinct to distinguish, to prevent us from destroying ourselves with our creations?

Very often, it seems that there is no difference between natural and artificial versions of a certain food or medicine. But, upon closer investigation, it seems that the naturally occurring version has certain properties lacking in the artificial, making the artificial less optimal for consumption. Men try to sell you ‘beyond-meat’ burgers, with the claim that there is no difference between animal and plant-protein. But upon closer investigation, it seems that the proteins occurring in animal foods are of a much fuller profile. Scientists will say there is no difference between naturally occurring psycho-active substances and synthetically made substances. Until years later, we find out that the child tweaked out on Ritalin has suffered brain-damage, while the native chewing coca-leaves has not.

It is indeed true that not everything that is natural is good, and it is indeed true that not everything that is artificial is bad. It just happens to be so that in most cases, what is natural is more suitable for the human organism. ‘Nature good, artifice bad’ might not be a truth, but it is a truthful heuristic to guide our actions.

It is only the myopic that can see no difference. In a certain sense, light is light, but the light of the sun is a much more complex light than the light emanating from your computer screen. And it also happens to be the case, that the light emanating from the sun is much more healthy for you than the light coming from your screen. 

Nature has its ways, and it is the worst of human arrogance to think that your ways are always better. 

We are hardwired, by nature, to make this judgement that natural is better than artificial. For in our instincts, we know that we are products of nature. And if this nature was able to create such complex organisms as ourselves. How would we ever think that we are more intelligent? That we could see all its reasons? It is as if nature has given us this belief —that nature is good— to protect us from our own hubris. It has given us this belief, not as an incontrovertible truth —for yes, sometimes artificial products are better than natural products— but as a useful heuristic, to guide us safely through this life, in those cases where our own thoughts are not yet good enough to safely guide our actions. 

Nature is good, because it protects us from our natural instinct to destroy ourselves through artifice. And most of all, it is good because it has given us this capacity to distinguish between nature and artifice, to protect us from those wanting to hook you on drugs as if it were the most natural thing.

"There is no difference between nature and artifice", "everything is natural" 

Says the man wanting to sell you his artificial drug.

As an additional heuristic. When it comes to these popular thought-leaders, these big-name philosophers. It is always useful to do some reading on who and what they are associated with. 

It is an interesting question, ‘what is the difference between nature and artifice?’ But when it is asked by those benefitting from a certain answer, pay attention.