[lordkrandel]

If I hear the argument of "naturality" and "natural design" I explode. We are "naturally" meant to die at 21, after getting whatever illness, never to move with massive transport, not even speak. 'cause all we naturally are is monkeys, right? AaaaaRGHHHH This argument makes me nuts

[bradrn]

Or, as Terry Pratchett so eloquently put it in The Fifth Elephant:

> “Not natural, in my view, sah. Not in favor of unnatural things.”

> Vetinari looked perplexed. “You mean, you eat your meat raw and sleep in a tree?”

[amanaplanacanal]

I think there can be a middle ground here. Yes the appeal to nature fallacy is a thing. However, it's not obviously wrong to say that humans evolved in a specific environment, and to question whether moving them to a completely different environment is going to make their life worse.

We evolved living in smaller cooperative groups, and spending most of our time in nature. The farther we move away from that the more we might want to question whether any individual change is actually going to make our life better. Likely some tradeoffs are absolutely worth it and some probably not.

[lordkrandel]

Not counting that we already have been studying our own behaviour for thousands of years, as social individuals and society... sometimes you just cannot go back, throw a bat on everyone's head and convince everyone that since we work better in groups of 7, there shall be no corporation

[green_wheel]

Working 90 hours a week in a 15 person startup is arguably further from what we were supposed to do than cruising at Google

[stabbles]

I think this is fair criticism. It's hard to read this blog cause its premise is based on an "appeal to nature" fallacy.

[jjulius]

It's flawed criticism because it's rooted in an all-or-nothing perspective.

[smsm42]

No, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. The flaw in the Graham's argument is that he argues we should prefer "natural" without first proving "natural" means "good". Bubonic plague is very natural, but not so good, right? That doesn't have to be all or nothing, but each time somebody says "do X not Y because X is more natural", we ought to ask "but does natural here mean good?". Sometimes it does - eating an apple is probably better than ingesting a bunch of high-inducing refined sugar - but sometimes it doesn't. Antibiotics are not natural, but preferable to being eaten alive by bacteria. So this needs to be established on case by case basis - is "natural" good in this case? And Graham doesn't seem to bother to do that.

[stabbles]

David Hume pointed this out in 1740, and his advise still applies:

    A reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treatise_of_Human_Nature/Book...

[samrus]

I think paul graham is biased to always tell people to make startups, but what hes saying resonates to me in that it is a spectrum. You dont have to. Ake a startup, but you can work for a company of 20 people and feel thats its alot more liberating and feel a much stronger sense of purpose. He even concedes that near the end

[jjulius]

There's a lot more nuance to the "natural" conversation than the assumption that we should go back to stone tools and all die before we hit 25. I've not really seen someone with that general belief, and I'm one of them myself, argue for such an all-or-nothing approach.

It's about balance.

[ok_dad]

The opposite end of that spectrum is everyone here who thinks we should just ignore nature and where we came from since we’ve conquered it, or something. I’m not sure what you all are arguing here. We’re still a part of nature, we’ll discover that quickly if society collapses.

[nine_k]

"Natural" is something that happens "by itself", for free, without your having to exert an effort to produce it. If it happens to be something beneficial, it should be incorporated and used to your advantage.

[wavemode]

> We are "naturally" meant to die at 21

Not really? Historical life expectancies were low because it was so common to die in infancy and childhood (thus dragging down the "average").

For people who made it to 20, it was common to live past 60.

[ACCount37]

Yeah, you were just meant to "naturally" have 7 children, of which 2-4 die before they get a name. But the ones who live? They might make it past 60.

[smsm42]

Or die from an infection coming from a random splinter. Also a very natural thing.

[amanaplanacanal]

Yeah people get that one wrong all the time. They don't realize what a bad argument it is.

I'm guessing they are ignorant of historical facts and are just repeating what they heard from somebody else.

[Filligree]

People do get that wrong. But the corrected version is “you were supposed to die as a baby”, and…

That doesn’t sound any better.

[jjulius]

>That doesn't sound any better.

It doesn't, because "it was so common to", as OP stated, is not the same thing as "you were supposed to". There's no reason it should be corrected, it's accurate.

[skrebbel]

I wish i could upvote you seven times