[LukaCEnzo]

I think that the disagreement stems from the difference between what you and him mean by definition.

We use words to describe, and to categorize stuff. But naturally this vague. Everybody undestands if you describe a shirt as blue.or green, but most people would find it hard to describe when one turns to another, where the boundary between them is. So we use other names for that, or describe it as blueish green, or something similar.

To get rid of confusion, handle edge cases, and for other reasons, we define formal defenitions, which are different from the ambiguous idea we have of something.

What the comment you replied to means, is that the formal definition doesn't fit his idea of what is natural. You on the other hand are saying that the formal definition is the only (valid) meaning of the word, and so it can't be good or bad.

[totalZero]

Yes.

Not to mention that "anything untouched by humans" is not the formal definition of "natural."