[GoldenRacer]

Where exactly is the line drawn for how much and what type of human intervention is required? When I cook food, human intervention is causing chemical reactions that change the composition of the food. I doubt many people consider grill marks to be unnatural or synthetic.

[simiones]

I think the line is typically drawn at any human intervention. I doubt many humans consider steaks to be a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Now, there is a secondary fuzzy notion of "artificial" typically used in relation to "chemicals". I don't think that definition stands up to most serious scrutiny, and is at any rate unrelated to this article.

[asow92]

That's exactly what's being—albeit atypically—advocated for here: That even steaks are a naturally occurring byproduct of humans and cows because humans and cows naturally exist.

[simiones]

Sure, but then of course absolutely everything is "naturally occurring". Plastic is a naturally occurring substance, computers are naturally occurring objects, C++ is a natural language. Perhaps then only miracles from God (for those who believe in such things) are unnatural?

[asow92]

In your example, I’d opt for supernatural over unnatural, and I get your meaning.

[asow92]

Now you're getting it.

[simiones]

I am, but this is just not what those words mean, to anyone.

[MacsHeadroom]

Plenty of people do not believe the conceptualization of a natural/synthetic divide does any good. There are entire subsets of philosophy, feminism, cyborg theory, etc. which talk about this.

[asow92]

It may be heterodox, but it’s what it means to me, and I’m sure I’m not completely alone in feeling so.