Natural does not mean moral.
Why use a relative term to describe a relative term? Natural is what we make it. Same with moral. We\'ve all different ideas about things. I tried to define the word natural by the context in which I used it, but now the word \"moral\" pops up. I\'d bet that there are millions of different opinions of the word moral. Your personal defination does not take precidence over mine, nor mine yours.
And mad cow disease is still around, so I take issue with your definition of \"under control\". The truth is that we don\'t even know the full scope of the damage that was done.
I think the idea is that the actions that were the worst risk are under control, but yes, the full scope is as of yet unknown, and under control is another relative term. No sense arguing varying degrees of it.
These people who use \"natural\" to justify their lifestyle don\'t have much to stand on. Vacines aren\'t natural, drinking milk into adulthood isn\'t natural, TV and computers aren\'t natural, drinking the milk of other animals isn\'t natural. And there are plenty of other things which are natural but we all agree are bad. Natural equals good is a really bad argument to make.
I never said natural = good. I said natural = natural, simply taking a step back and realizing that we all have our part to play; I am an animal, so are you - we are part of a society. Sometimes in order to maintain the style of a society, that society makes generalities giving a commond ground of similar or compatible goals, and lifestyles. Means of doing thing are very dynamic in the human world, but that doesn\'t mean its not natural. Different societies are found all around the animal kingdom, each with their own rules and ways. I understand that you can\'t say for instance rape is natural in the animal kingdom, so it is natural for humans to rape, and therefore it is ok to rape. This is because humans formed a society in which that was considered wrong. This was done as a natural progression for population control, mental conditioning, etc... People get into religion here, using a common book to say that morals are absolute. I understand this a bit better, as its a common ground for people to help define their socitey, and is an easy way to have common morals within a group without having to justify it in any way.
I consider natural natures progression of genetics, behavior, and societal evolutions, which includes technological advances.
You\'ll note I never said you can use \"natural\" to justify actions. You really seemed to miss my point.
POINT:
Everything in the world is linked as part of a giant system. Each part of the system has its place. Humans, like other animals are part of this enormous giant mindboggling complex organism that is our planet. When we forget that we are a part of the system and start thinking we are above the system we run into problems with our own perceptions. Suddenly we are the focal point, and everything is below us, which is an illusion created by our own misconceptions, stubbornness, and overal inability to comprehend something larger than ourselves.
Other point: You cannot use relative personal terms to prove \"Facts\". Use empirical evidence, and scientific terms. Moral, Natural, etc... bad words as it is easy to fall into a disagreement of terms which takes away from a healthy discussion.
