OK, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about this. If you don't see the value in being able to predict the future, I'm not going to try to persuade you of it.
It was more about what aspects of the future we are capable of predicting thanks to natural sciences, and what aspects of the future are valuable to predict.
It might just be that predicting the outcome of an interaction of two molecules is itself less valuable than, say (can’t think of anything better, feel free to be more creatively specific here), predicting whether we flourish or suffer. The former is easier, sure, but is that enough to make it valuable? That the latter is more important is an assumption, but I think not an unfounded one.
So first of all, "natural sciences" is redundant. All science is natural. There is no unnatural science.
And second, what makes you think that predicting how molecules interact is detached from predicting whether we flourish or suffer? We are made of molecules. Whether we flourish or suffer is ultimately determined by what our molecules do. There are people alive today who would not be if we had not been able to make reliable predictions about how mRNA molecules were going to interact with the molecules in our bodies to produce antibodies (which are molecules) to fight the covid virus (also made of molecules).
> All science is natural. There is no unnatural science.
It is a well defined category. Sciences that do not fall into the tiny subset of natural sciences include, among others, mathematics, logic, sociology, economics, psychology, and the mother of all sciences—philosophy.
> Whether we flourish or suffer is ultimately determined by what our molecules do
Not really—unless you can prove that consciousness arises from said molecules (which not only is yet-unproven but is also arguably unfalsifiable within the framework of scientific method), it is only your opinion and not a scientific fact.
No, it isn't. I know that it is commonly considered to be a well-defined category, but it's not. Philosophy is not a science at all. Neither is math, except insofar as it is studied as a natural phenomenon. The so-called "social sciences" are commonly set apart in a different category, but in the context of your comment:
> It was more about what aspects of the future we are capable of predicting thanks to natural sciences
that a distinction without a difference. It is not the distinction between "natural" and "social" that matters in this case, it is the distinction between areas of intellectual inquiry that employ the scientific method vs those that don't.