Nothing is Unnatural

Recently I’ve been absorbed by the idea of nature. What exactly counts as natural? And what is unnatural? These are incredibly important questions, with profound implications stretching into all areas of human and universal concern. In this article, I’d like to demonstrate that any concept of unnaturalness is damaging to human development. And yes, I don’t mean unnatural things are damaging; I mean that the choice to use the very word unnatural instead of negative is damaging and regressive. It’s a question of semantics. But semantics make our brains go round.

On the highstreet of Colchester the other day I had the misfortune to overhear a Christian preacher declaiming against homosexuals. I ended up confronting him and eventually the police got involved; he was given a choice between leaving the town or arrest. So it was a victory for the force of love. But the reason I reference this event is because the basis of his anti-homosexual stance was his perception of homosexuality as unnatural.

"What’s the digestive system for?" he asked me.

"Eating" I replied.

"Exactly," he smugged, his point proven.

"Yes, but haven’t you kissed your wife before?"

He was lost for words. His mainstay argument had been comprehensively undermined. Kissing is of course a ‘natural’ act. But it uses the digestive tract, which is designed for digesting. By his logic, kissing is as unnatural as anal sex.

Having a concept of unnatural is damaging for many more reasons. It doesn’t just justify prejudice. Vital, life-saving stem cell research has been threatened by the argument that it is unnatural. The human-animal embryo debate is a clear example of this. Potentially any scientific endeavour is unnatural. Abortion is unnatural, but surely pro-choice is the only possible human response if we want to avoid criminalising rape victims. Transvestites and homosexuals are unnatural. A wife cheating on her husband is unnatural. A woman having a job is unnatural. Therefore all these things should be deplored.

But a concept of the unnatural can of course be a positive force. Fiddling with children is unnatural. Deforestation is unnatural. Murder, torture and rape are unnatural. Universal acceptance of this leads to justified condemnation of the said acts. So we’re in a bit of a pickle. Our acceptance that the unnatural exists leads to intolerance of both positive and negative acts.

Before we develop this idea further, let’s have a quick look at why nothing is technically unnatural. Even the most horrific act of genocide is a natural act. I’ll explain why: is a bird’s nest unnatural? Of course not. So is a house unnatural? Well, of course not. An animal has manipulated the environment around it to create a nest, albeit with a flat-screen TV and a microwave. But a microwave is a natural object. In the same way that a mole moves mud to tunnel his burrow, the human moves atoms to build his microwave. It’s just slightly more complicated. All human creations are a product of 13.7 billion years of universal development. It’s the journey of life and it’s been a natural journey. It has been enriched by positive acts and marred by negative acts, but nothing about it has been unnatural, because nature is all there is.

If we don’t accept this logic we are saying that human beings are unnatural. And the only way humans could be unnatural is if we accept that we were created in God’s image as his curious little pet project. This is an idea that I reject. We are quite clearly the product of millions of years of evolution. My great great (10 x 27) grandmother was a slug called Dorris who lived in the primordial soup. I am a vertebrate animal, with two eyes, ears, and four limbs. I am a part of the great story of the natural universe. The fact that humans have evolved consciousness and self-awareness doesn’t make us unnatural. We are merely more evolved than everything else.

It is our self-imposed removal from nature that has brought both problems and benefits. It has led us to rape the world of its resources, forgetting that we are part of a delicate web of existence that could collapse under too much strain. (Or too much C02 for example.) But it is also our exile from nature that inspires environmentalists to save the world. From our exalted position of consciousness, we can see the awful consequences that unnatural human acts have on the natural environment. Being unnatural endows us with a profound responsibility to look after the natural world. But ultimately it is consciousness that endows us with this responsibility to look after our world, a world that we are fundamentally part of. We are not unnatural, and therefore we have a duty to protect the environment that sustains our natural life. Because without it, or if it gets damaged, we will all die.

So from both positions (i.e. one where you consider us unnatural and one where you consider we’re not) we can draw a responsibility to be good to the world. But if you’re in the latter position, you’ll do all that good, but will be unable to condemn positive acts that would usually be considered unnatural. So it’s a doubly good position to be in!

From now on, let’s assume we’ve thrown out the concept of the unnatural. We are all natural beings, I’m typing this using my natural keyboard, and locking your daughter in a cellar for twenty-four years is a natural act. Surely society has just been stripped of its moral fabric?! But of course it hasn’t. Human beings are clearly capable of judging whether an act is positive or negative. I don’t want to go into how this works; it’s a massive debate, but the fact that we have a functioning justice system proves that society is capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, between positive and negative. And we don’t need the concept of whether something is natural or unnatural clouding and distorting our view. Joseph Fritzl was not condemned because what he did was unnatural. He was condemned because what he did was wrong; it was negative.

The justice system has, arguably, already rid itself of the natural/unnatural divide. Homosexuality, widely regarded as an unnatural act, is no longer prosecuted. Now it is time for society to rid itself of the distinction. It is a subtle change. It does not affect our morality. But it will have wide-reaching implications for how we look at others and the world, and how we treat others and the world.

Try it. Next time you find yourself thinking, "eurgh, that’s so unnatural" stop yourself and change it to, "eurgh, that’s so negative." Nine times out of ten it will be negative. But there’ll be exceptions:

"That human-animal embryo is so unnatural," you think, turning a page in the paper.

"Oh, hang on, right, that human-animal embryo is so negative. . ."

You stop. You think for a moment.

"Hang on. . . no it’s not. It’s going to produce stem cells to tackle cancer, Parkinson’s disease, leukaemia – gosh it’s actually really positive."

Semantics. That’s all it is. But look at how powerful an impact they have on how we think about things. The substitution of a word and suddenly your brain completely changes its mind. Of course it’s not this black and white. And you can think that something is unnatural whilst being aware that it might be positive. But because we generally shiver with repulsion at unnatural acts, we would do good to be done with the whole concept, and enjoy the clarity that a simple positive/negative divide would bring.

The hate preacher on the street would have no sympathisers. Those Taleban scumbags whipping that woman would be universally condemned. Science could freely work towards protecting us from death. Society wouldn’t tolerate pollution of any kind. And all of us would recognise that the fate of humanity is bound inextricably to the fate of the planet. It’s quite a big deal for such a tiny semantic change. So let’s embrace it.