[Dalewyn]

If the products of humans (who are natural) are not natural, then by the same token do you argue beaver dams and beehives are also unnatural/artificial constructs?

If you ask me, everything on Earth including all products of humanity are natural.

This distinction between natural and artificial is primarily based off of a human superiority complex, that humanity is special and superior and masters of this planet. I feel it would benefit all of us as a species to drop that attitude ASAP because it gets in the way of objective judgment.

[DennisP]

The Oxford English dictionary's first definition for the word "artificial" is "made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural."

"Made by humans" is a useful definition of "artificial," because regardless of how we feel about human superiority, in practice we often want to distinguish between things that are made by humans, and things that aren't. If we didn't use the word "artificial" for that, we'd come up with another convenient adjective meaning the same thing (and then probably have semantic arguments over that one).

[feet]

Artificial != unnatural

[DennisP]

OED's first definition for "natural" is "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."

And one of their definitions for "unnatural" is "not existing in nature; artificial."

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

What would be unnatural then?

[Dalewyn]

Something that intrudes upon this universe from another universe, perhaps.

Nothing that is a product of this universe, whether directly or indirectly, is unnatural. Everything is natural, from steel skyscrapers to beaver dams to beehives to planets and stars.

[dTal]

Clearly "natural" and "unnatural" denote categories that it is useful to distinguish between, or we would not have the words. What is to be accomplished by your attempt to redefine the concept into uselessness, apart from making it difficult to discuss environmental issues?