I disagree with your proposed heuristic for two reasons,
I think it is to poorly defined to be a good decision-making guide (Heuristic)
By my definition I think it would guide you to worse decisions not better
To poorly defined:
Natural—existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind
Better—more desirable, satisfactory, or effective
There are two issues in definition, the first, more minor, issue is in “Natural”.
It’s far too broad, for example where does the line stop for an herbal remedy? At the wild herb, the cultivated variety, a dried leaf, an extract or tea from the leaves or a pill manufactured from the identified active ingredient?
The second more serious issue is in “Better”. Better requires a direction, the question must be asked better for who or what? In your wooden stick verses plastic object example, its true a wooden stick is better at decomposing in a woodland. However, if we didn’t want it to decompose, for example if it were a fencepost we were talking about a plastic version would be preferable (all other factors being equal).
Actually, a bad heuristic:
My understanding of what you meant by your heuristic would be
“The closer your choice matches what would be found or happen with the minimum of human intervention the better for your health / wealth”.
There are no criteria given for when to apply this heuristic, making it a poor heuristic, however using your own examples and applying the above heuristic to all of them:
Media consumption – avoid anything not mouth to mouth – Result: Happy and ignorant 😊
Fuel choice – Use wood or animal power not nuclear – Result: significantly more poverty, health issues and animal cruelty
No GMOs – Only eat the non-bred ancestral variety of plants / animals (Aegilops tauschii, Bos primigenius) – Result: Very very expensive food.
No pesticides – Result: Very expensive food
No artificial fertilizers – Result: Very expensive food
Weapon choice – Clubs and slings only – Result: killed immediately by non-complying competitors, great tv.
Technology use – No computers / cars / internet or anything dependant on that etc – Result: Ostracism and eventual starvation.
Food consumption – eat as much as you can as often as you can – Result: Obesity
Type of foods to eat – Pottage only (ideally with self-caught wild game, many wild herbs gathered and grain you grew organically) – Boredom, Poverty, good health 😊
The heuristic applies whenever you have good reason to think science does not understand a natural system (not human, as you said) well enough to control it safely (and thereby make it artificial, human.) We know how to make everything you mentioned, safely.
I am not at all skeptical of technology; I’m only pointing out that there are many things that remain too complex for us to affect with certainty we won’t set off an unexpected cascade. The point would be to boost science so that we eventually do understand those things well enough to make (better) artificial versions of them. In the meantime, don’t be surprised when nature backfires on you.
Okay, I think I see your point. Could I summarise your heuristic as “Don’t tear down Chesterton’s fence until you are absolutely sure you know why it was there”?
“natural is better”
I disagree with your proposed heuristic for two reasons,
I think it is to poorly defined to be a good decision-making guide (Heuristic)
By my definition I think it would guide you to worse decisions not better
To poorly defined:
Natural—existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind
Better—more desirable, satisfactory, or effective
There are two issues in definition, the first, more minor, issue is in “Natural”.
It’s far too broad, for example where does the line stop for an herbal remedy? At the wild herb, the cultivated variety, a dried leaf, an extract or tea from the leaves or a pill manufactured from the identified active ingredient?
The second more serious issue is in “Better”. Better requires a direction, the question must be asked better for who or what? In your wooden stick verses plastic object example, its true a wooden stick is better at decomposing in a woodland. However, if we didn’t want it to decompose, for example if it were a fencepost we were talking about a plastic version would be preferable (all other factors being equal).
Actually, a bad heuristic:
My understanding of what you meant by your heuristic would be
“The closer your choice matches what would be found or happen with the minimum of human intervention the better for your health / wealth”.
There are no criteria given for when to apply this heuristic, making it a poor heuristic, however using your own examples and applying the above heuristic to all of them:
Media consumption – avoid anything not mouth to mouth – Result: Happy and ignorant 😊
Fuel choice – Use wood or animal power not nuclear – Result: significantly more poverty, health issues and animal cruelty
No GMOs – Only eat the non-bred ancestral variety of plants / animals (Aegilops tauschii, Bos primigenius) – Result: Very very expensive food.
No pesticides – Result: Very expensive food
No artificial fertilizers – Result: Very expensive food
Weapon choice – Clubs and slings only – Result: killed immediately by non-complying competitors, great tv.
Technology use – No computers / cars / internet or anything dependant on that etc – Result: Ostracism and eventual starvation.
Food consumption – eat as much as you can as often as you can – Result: Obesity
Type of foods to eat – Pottage only (ideally with self-caught wild game, many wild herbs gathered and grain you grew organically) – Boredom, Poverty, good health 😊
That’s not the natural heuristic. By nature, humans have hunger as a guiding emotion to tell them when to eat.
You are quite right. I was thinking of the behaviour of humans while food is scarce and the human permanently hungry, not in the modern context.
The heuristic applies whenever you have good reason to think science does not understand a natural system (not human, as you said) well enough to control it safely (and thereby make it artificial, human.) We know how to make everything you mentioned, safely.
I am not at all skeptical of technology; I’m only pointing out that there are many things that remain too complex for us to affect with certainty we won’t set off an unexpected cascade. The point would be to boost science so that we eventually do understand those things well enough to make (better) artificial versions of them. In the meantime, don’t be surprised when nature backfires on you.
Do you see what I mean?
Okay, I think I see your point. Could I summarise your heuristic as “Don’t tear down Chesterton’s fence until you are absolutely sure you know why it was there”?
A defence of “tradition” rather than of “nature”?