# Is anything actually unnatural? **URL:** \ **Category:** Metaphysics & Epistemology\ **Created:** [September 1, 2026, 12:17am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837 "2026-09-01T00:17:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Quellcrist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/958977/32.png) [@Quellcrist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Quellcrist)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 12:17am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/1 "2026-09-01T00:17:50Z")
For most of my life, I thought of humans and human made things as unnatural. And this is a correct definition depending on the source of the definition. However, recently it dawned on me that nature made us, too. We are not outside nature; we are of nature. That might seem obvious, but it really wasn’t to me until that moment. And if we are of nature and everything we make is from nature, then is the concept of unnatural even real or just a human notion? ---
**Author:** ![Patterner](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patterner/32/192_2.png) [@Patterner](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Patterner)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 1:36am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/2 "2026-09-01T01:36:23Z")
There are good reasons to categorize things. _Natural_ and _man-made_ are a good pairing for certain purposes. But nothing truly unnatural can exist in this universe. A good definition of _natural_ might be _Anything that exists in the universe._ But there’s not much we can do with that. ---
**Author:** ![Quellcrist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/958977/32.png) [@Quellcrist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Quellcrist)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 2:06am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/3 "2026-09-01T02:06:35Z")
> [@Patterner](#): > > A good definition of _natural_ might be _Anything that exists in the universe._ But there’s not much we can do with that. I do agree that a definition that literally contains everything isn’t useful in a lot of ways. Categorizing things can be useful to navigate the world and share our understanding with each other. However, I also think that treating ourselves and the things we make as outside of nature does us and nature a disservice. We often act as though humans are parasites that plague nature and in some ways that might be true. But this exclusion creates an identity that humans are separate from and bad for nature. I think we’re more likely to take better care of nature if we feel like we belong to it rather than we are alien to it. So, in a sense, I’m advocating for an all in definition so we can better relate to nature and see ourselves for what we are, which is nature. ---
**Author:** ![Elephant](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/elephant/32/294_2.png) [@Elephant](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Elephant)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 2:58am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/4 "2026-09-01T02:58:40Z")
> [@Quellcrist](#): > > And if we are of nature and everything we make is from nature, then is the concept of unnatural even real or just a human notion? It’s a human notion. **Unnatural** is a label we use if the source is not from a _whole_ source. We can create banana essence from petroleum, instead of using bananas to extract. ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 8:27am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/5 "2026-09-01T08:27:06Z")
Have you heard of the Bell curve? ---
**Author:** ![Thrifclyfe](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/thrifclyfe/32/1132_2.png) [@Thrifclyfe](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Thrifclyfe)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 9:09am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/6 "2026-09-01T09:09:07Z")
We must be careful speaking of “nature” since it is a broad, polysemic concept. If “nature” includes everything that exists, i.e. the total set of physical reality, then “unnatural” is mostly a moralized category. If “nature” includes everything that is organic, “unnaturalness” is complicated by artificial things having partially-natural origins. The only coherent, non-moralizing use of “unnatural” is “supernatural”. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mijin1/32/1180_2.png) [@Mijin1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mijin1)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 9:50am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/7 "2026-09-01T09:50:15Z")
> [@Patterner](#): > > There are good reasons to categorize things. _Natural_ and _man-made_ are a good pairing for certain purposes. But nothing truly unnatural can exist in this universe. A good definition of _natural_ might be _Anything that exists in the universe._ But there’s not much we can do with that. This. If we were designing language in a hyper-logical way, we might have “levels” of nature, where a sand dune, a beaver dam and a nuclear power plant are all “natural”, but at different levels of abstraction due to the influence of a thinking agent. But while this might be logical it would be inconvenient / impractical, and would also mean the word “natural” would be completely redundant. * * * On “supernatural”, I think something similar would ultimately apply. If something like ghosts actually existed then they would be part of nature too, in a strict sense. We might still want to keep the word “supernatural” though for ethereal phenomena. (And it now occurs to me that the common objection to the word “supernatural” (and insistence on using “paranormal” instead) is wrong-headed. Of course everything is natural, but we still make distinctions in language for some kinds of phenomena) ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 10:15am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/8 "2026-09-01T10:15:32Z")
> [@Quellcrist](#): > > And if we are of nature and everything we make is from nature, then is the concept of unnatural even real or just a human notion? Isn’t it natural and practical to know a concept “unnatural”, and refer to the objects, situations or events in the universe which look and feel not natural, odd or strange? ---
**Author:** ![Johnnywas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/22d042/32.png) [@Johnnywas](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Johnnywas)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 10:25am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/9 "2026-09-01T10:25:47Z")
Good question. I like to reduce processed food in my diet but the term natural is often abused. ---
**Author:** ![Patterner](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patterner/32/192_2.png) [@Patterner](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Patterner)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 11:54am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/10 "2026-09-01T11:54:24Z")
> [@Quellcrist](#): > > However, I also think that treating ourselves and the things we make as outside of nature does us and nature a disservice. We often act as though humans are parasites that plague nature and in some ways that might be true. > > But this exclusion creates an identity that humans are separate from and bad for nature. I think we’re more likely to take better care of nature if we feel like we belong to it rather than we are alien to it. I understand the idea that we’re “bad for” nature. It seems obvious when you look at what we’ve done to the rain forests, how we’ve polluted the oceans and air, the species we’ve eradicated. In one sense, we are objectively bad for nature. Or, rather, for other life forms. I don’t think we would say destroying a lifeless moon somewhere would be bad for nature? But then think of a supernova. If any civilization, or even just life, developed on the planet, it’s gone. And what about the mass extinction events that have happened on earth? And earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes. There are many things that are undeniably natural that have caused as much harm to living things as we have. And quite a few animals die by being swallowed whole while alive, having their throat ripped open by the teeth of another animal, being stung to death by hornets, various diseases, and other gruesome ways. Nature is a horrifying, painful thing. None of which is to say we should not try to avoid harming living things. But that’s a moral issue, not a natural one. In the meantime, we are reshaping our world. Given enough time, we may reshape the solar system, the galaxy, the universe. In Star Wars, the planet Coruscant is entirely covered by a single city. Is the entire planet unnatural? Is NYC? I can understand answering Yes. But I can understand it all being part of an ever evolving nature. ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 12:49pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/11 "2026-09-01T12:49:57Z")
There is absolutely NO thing that is unnatural. ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 1:08pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/12 "2026-09-01T13:08:14Z")
> [@Quellcrist](#): > > But this exclusion creates an identity that humans are separate from and bad for nature. I think we’re more likely to take better care of nature if we feel like we belong to it rather than we are alien to it. Something else that might help adult human beings take better care of Nature, and their one and only home earth, is when human beings realise that even the pollution that they create is a part of Nature, too much pollution will end up killing them. Nature will always take care of Itself, and if anything is doing too much activity and naturally causing an out of balance, then Nature just gets rid of or makes extinct ‘that thing’ which is not in line with Nature. Just like every parasite that over-populates ends up destroying its host, and so cannot survive anymore, human beings are no different. If human beings overstep ‘the mark’ Nature, or the earth, will not support humans existence anymore. ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 1:10pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/13 "2026-09-01T13:10:41Z")
> [@Thrifclyfe](#): > > The only coherent, non-moralizing use of “unnatural” is “supernatural”. But just like there is nothing ‘unnatural’ there is also nothing that is ‘supernatural’. Everything that is, happens, or occurs is natural. Full stop. ---
**Author:** ![Thrifclyfe](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/thrifclyfe/32/1132_2.png) [@Thrifclyfe](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Thrifclyfe)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 1:12pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/14 "2026-09-01T13:12:29Z")
If you insist. ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 1:14pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/15 "2026-09-01T13:14:10Z")
But I do not insist. Is there any human being that can name one thing, let alone more things, that is not natural? ---
**Author:** ![Thrifclyfe](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/thrifclyfe/32/1132_2.png) [@Thrifclyfe](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Thrifclyfe)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 1:29pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/16 "2026-09-01T13:29:26Z")
A person cannot name a thing that I am aware of that is both excluded from the category of “natural” and included in the category of “empirically demonstrated”. My use of the concept of “supernatural” was hypothetical; my argument being that it is at least more coherent than “unnatural”, which is replete with even more folk baggage than “supernatural”. Neither is particularly conducive to easy discourse. “Natural”, however, is described by the natural sciences, which is convenient, since if we want to learn about nature we need only open a textbook. I assume books still exist somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 10:43pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/17 "2026-09-01T22:43:57Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > Of course everything is natural, but we still make distinctions in language for some kinds of phenomena) It might be the case that implied and/or inferred distinctions in language are made, while specific distinctions are not made. ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 10:47pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/18 "2026-09-01T22:47:41Z")
> [@Corvus](#): > > Isn’t it natural and practical to know a concept “unnatural”, and refer to the objects, situations or events in the universe which look and feel not natural, odd or strange? ‘We’ were taught, and teach, to presume that some things are not natural or unnatural, but on deeper reflection and questioning, ‘this’ is just another Falsehood ‘we’ were taught, and some are still teaching. ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 11:23pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/19 "2026-09-01T23:23:42Z")
> [@Patterner](#): > > I understand the idea that we’re “bad for” nature. It seems obvious when you look at what we’ve done to the rain forests, how we’ve polluted the oceans and air, the species we’ve eradicated. In one sense, we are objectively bad for nature. ‘We’, human beings, are not bad ‘for’ Nature, as Nature always overrides everything. However, like every thing that ‘tips the balance’ Nature is always in control and always brings things back to balance, or back to equilibrium. > [@Patterner](#): > > But then think of a supernova. If any civilization, or even just life, developed on the planet, it’s gone. And what about the mass extinction events that have happened on earth? And earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes. There are many things that are undeniably natural that have caused as much harm to living things as we have. And, all of those living things evolved to be created because of supernovas, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and all of the other previous non-human-created occurrences and events. (By the way, speaking of ‘living things’ as though anything is actually not alive is like speaking of ‘any thing’ as though any of them is not natural. Every thing is, in a sense, alive and natural.) Any civilisation, or any life, that came to be is because of the exact same things that can cause them ‘gone’. For example, human beings only came to be because supernovas, earthquakes, storms, lightning, rain, and the sun exist, but these things can also cause human beings’ extinction as well. > [@Patterner](#): > > There are many things that are undeniably natural that have caused as much harm to living things as we have. If anyone wants to claim that non-human-made events cause ‘harm’, then they also have to admit that these things cause and create living things as well, including “themselves”. ‘Harm’ is a concept that only some human beings live with. Every one/thing else ‘just lives’ instead. Obviously, adult human beings cause ‘harm’ to children and other living things, which clearly could be prevented from happening and occurring, but, clearly, non-human-created events cannot be prevented from happening and occurring. To me, things that can be prevented and stopped can cause ‘harm’, but what cannot be prevented nor stopped does not cause ‘harm’. So, one either ‘lives with’ what cannot be prevented, or ‘suffers’ in their ‘own making’. Which means that the only ‘real harm’ that is being done here is by one’s ‘own making’. > [@Patterner](#): > > And quite a few animals die by being swallowed whole while alive, having their throat ripped open by the teeth of another animal, being stung to death by hornets, various diseases, and other gruesome ways. Nature is a horrifying, painful thing. one can choose to ‘look at’ and ‘see’ things ‘this way’ if they like. > [@Patterner](#): > > None of which is to say we should not try to avoid harming living things. But that’s a moral issue, not a natural one. Most people who ‘look at’ and ‘see’ ‘Life’ in ‘this way’ or from ‘this perspective’ also like to self-justify that killing or harming other things is perfectly ‘natural’, and so they have “excused themselves” for and from the Wrong that they “themselves” do. > [@Patterner](#): > > In the meantime, we are reshaping our world. Ever since human beings were created and evolved into being the adult ones have been shaping what some call ‘our world’. > [@Patterner](#): > > Given enough time, we may reshape the solar system, the galaxy, the universe. In Star Wars, the planet Coruscant is entirely covered by a single city. Is the entire planet unnatural? Is NYC? I can understand answering Yes. But I can understand it all being part of an ever evolving nature. Absolutely EVERY thing is a part of the always constant evolutionary change, also known as Nature, Itself. Even if, for example, human beings wiped “themselves” out entirely and became completely extinct through their stupid, greedy and selfish ways, by either killing each other through wars or by polluting their One and only home earth too much, Nature, Itself, does not care one iota, and will just keep on doing what It always does until, eventually, an intelligent enough species will evolve into creation and does work out and learn HOW TO live in Peace and in Harmony together forever more. After all, the Universe exists forever so Nature certainly has no rush to create what always will come to be, finally. ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2026, 11:29pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837/20 "2026-09-01T23:29:16Z")
If an unnatural or supernatural thing cannot be presented, then clearly none exists. What I find most coherent is what actually aligns with what is Right, Truth, and Reality only. [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-anything-actually-unnatural/2837.md?page=2)