Beavers build dams on rivers; birds build nests; Shimpinze use sticks to catch ants or termites. Nature speaks for itself. But when people build dams or use tools to feed themselves, our products, while far more sophisticated, are considered unnatural. This distinction is deeply ingrained. Entire fields of thought, research and engineering bear this out with their names: synthetic biology, for example, or artificial intelligence. It feels like human inventions are separate from nature. But to what extent can one distinguish the natural from the unnatural, the natural from the unnatural? How useful is this distinction at all?
At first, this question seems simple. But this is not the case. On this occasion, Bertrand Russell said it excellently: "Everything is vague to the point that you do not understand it until you try to clarify."
In the dictionary, the definition of "unnatural" means "other than things that are usually found in the physical world or nature." Therefore, we must define what “usually” is, but nothing is more vague than that. Each person has his own concept of "ordinary", depending on his conditions of existence and life experience. We can replace “usually” with “average”, but then we are faced with the need to collect statistics. If you reduce the diversity of the world to "average", there will be no concrete example.
And even if we take the word "usually" seriously: stars, planets, signs of life - everything made of matter - will be far from our usual. Almost the entire natural, natural universe is represented by empty space. But who would characterize the Earth, the Sun, or the tree as something unnatural?
If you take a broader look and say that everything in our Universe is natural, then everything unnatural will become impossible by definition. It may exist, but we will never encounter it, because it is beyond our experience.
Perhaps human technology is as natural as the tools that are found throughout the animal kingdom; they are all as natural as planets, stars and galaxies.
From this point of view, technology is a natural consequence of physical laws. And the feeling that this is something far from nature is more related to morality. Apparently, inventions or technologies offend some people's feelings.
Genetic engineering is a good modern example.
Promotional video:
We currently use little genetic engineering in relation to plants (except by making genetically modified foods), but powerful new gene editing technologies are quickly making it easier to work with individual genes. We can put a jellyfish gene on a different genome and make a plant, rabbit, or kitten glow green. Isn't it strange?
In the not too distant future, we may be regularly engineering everything from bacteria to the human genome, even creating entirely new life forms. But we have a strong disgust and denial about the idea of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is usually called “playing with God” as unnatural for humans, far from natural intentions.
But genetic experiments are as old as life. After all, this is the engine of evolution itself.
From primitive mud to the teeming oceans of the Cambrian and the living world we know today, genetic mutation and sexual recombination have resulted in an unimaginable variety of creatures - deep sea monsters, fragile flowering plants, extremophiles, and great apes. And people deliberately carried out genetic experiments for a long time, observing living populations and using selection.
Admittedly, this is a spectrum. But not from natural to unnatural. At one end, you have evolutionary chances, and at the other, directional evolution. Sexual selection is a kind of directed evolution, in the sense that individuals instinctively choose partners for their genes according to pronounced physical characteristics. But full-fledged directional evolution will be possible only thanks to people. In terms of geological time, this is new.
As a relatively new acquisition of evolution, we are afraid of the power that is concentrated in our hands, and backlash against technology also makes sense as we see the Earth changing due to our presence. Seen from space, the planet literally glows at night.
But the world outside of people does not have such moral assessments and judgments. Ancient volcanism radically reworked the Earth's atmosphere; the asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs; and if given the chance, animals would quickly recycle the environment and its resources.
Even "natural" genetic selection is not ethical or even practical from an experimental standpoint. Changes take thousands or millions of years. Animals are left with useless, rudimentary remnants of previous generations. Genetic diseases and living conditions lead to suffering, death and extinction of species.
Human genetic engineering, on the other hand, is not accidental at all. And this thought is both frightening and reassuring. There will be mistakes along the way, there will be malicious creations - certainly - but in general genetic research shares a common goal: to improve much in the life of mankind.
This could mean treating genetic diseases or reducing crop failures. It can also include things that are funny or not serious - like glowing bunnies - or horrible - like designer babies.
Will the result of our experiments with genetic engineering and other advanced technologies be good or bad? We do not know. A new Cambrian explosion awaits us, including in terms of a variety of opinions and results. But when we discuss the future, we are increasingly defining what is worth fighting for and what is worth giving up. We define boundaries that we would not like or could not cross.
ILYA KHEL