[efnx]

The argument is that humans are part of nature and therefore anything made by humans is still natural.

I tend to agree with this - there is a dichotomy here, but it is "natural" vs. "supernatural" - not "natural" vs "synthetic". I think it would be fine if for most cases we simply said "man-made" vs "not man-made" as it succinctly describes the dichotomy we're aiming for.

The "greenwashing" here is that you _could_ call anything that's not a ghost or a god "natural" by a certain definition...

[tw04]

> The argument is that humans are part of nature and therefore anything made by humans is still natural.

Sure, if you completely disregard the context. “Natural” when talking in the context of humans is “nature vs man”.

A beaver dam is nature. The Hoover dam is man-made. If you want to red herring you could say “but man is part of nature” - there’s no point to doing so other than to argue semantics, but you could.