I heard one of the most ridiculous things on the bus a few days ago. Someone was talking about the cleanup of Stanley Park. The other person replied "Some people think we should leave it the way it is, it's natural." Let me tell you something, natural sucks.
Not that synthetic is that much better. Carcinogenic, ulcer enhancing, May Cause Stroke and Mild Blindness, easily flammable, Can Unintentionally and Spontaneously Collapse, ozone depleting, Now Made With 30% less Dinosaur Biomass. Synethetic products have a ton of undesireable traits. But it's much worse, in my opinion, to give the ethical stamp of "Oh look at me going back to the ways of the oft-malignbed and nearly wiped out indigenious people of [insert tribe du jour here] by following the natural rhythms of the land and buying this product made by this small company right in the rainforests (which had just been bought out by a mulitnational corporatijon that has more accountants than a Las Vegas bookie and more lawyers than hell (not much more, mind you)) " on products simply because they are natural.
It burns my hide. Because you know what else is natural? Opium, tobacco, mad cow disease, Montezuma's Revenge, E. Coli, nicotine, the redneck stylings of Jeff Foxworthy. That doesn't mean it's good for you. Hell, strychnine is 'natural'. And as a matter of fact, many of the natural things in the world are just trying to either a) eat you or b)well, let's face it, eat you. Why should we give chemicals and plants a free pass? They are from the same wild world that is trying it's best to get your soft, unarmored, unfanged, fleshy body into its belly. And yes, I said chemicals. Just because it comes from a plant doesn't mean its not a chemical. It only means it was made available to the public by a buncha people in lab coats with a Ph.D in Botany rather than Chemistry.
Holy Nietsche in Plaid Nickerbockers. Do I ever fricking ramble. The take home point here is that natural is not equal to good. Natural is equal to label a boardroom of marketers put on a product to "get out of skepticism free card and maybe be featured by Oprah".
Not that synthetic is that much better. Carcinogenic, ulcer enhancing, May Cause Stroke and Mild Blindness, easily flammable, Can Unintentionally and Spontaneously Collapse, ozone depleting, Now Made With 30% less Dinosaur Biomass. Synethetic products have a ton of undesireable traits. But it's much worse, in my opinion, to give the ethical stamp of "Oh look at me going back to the ways of the oft-malignbed and nearly wiped out indigenious people of [insert tribe du jour here] by following the natural rhythms of the land and buying this product made by this small company right in the rainforests (which had just been bought out by a mulitnational corporatijon that has more accountants than a Las Vegas bookie and more lawyers than hell (not much more, mind you)) " on products simply because they are natural.
It burns my hide. Because you know what else is natural? Opium, tobacco, mad cow disease, Montezuma's Revenge, E. Coli, nicotine, the redneck stylings of Jeff Foxworthy. That doesn't mean it's good for you. Hell, strychnine is 'natural'. And as a matter of fact, many of the natural things in the world are just trying to either a) eat you or b)well, let's face it, eat you. Why should we give chemicals and plants a free pass? They are from the same wild world that is trying it's best to get your soft, unarmored, unfanged, fleshy body into its belly. And yes, I said chemicals. Just because it comes from a plant doesn't mean its not a chemical. It only means it was made available to the public by a buncha people in lab coats with a Ph.D in Botany rather than Chemistry.
Holy Nietsche in Plaid Nickerbockers. Do I ever fricking ramble. The take home point here is that natural is not equal to good. Natural is equal to label a boardroom of marketers put on a product to "get out of skepticism free card and maybe be featured by Oprah".
Comments