"Natural" is just a social construct.

It is my belief that the idea that some things we do are not considered natural, is of an antiprogressive additude, not scientific logic. Not antiprogressive in a political manner, but in a unwillingness to, or denial of, change. If your of the opinion that anything that is "natural" means, not made or caused by humankind, then it would be logical to think that anything that humankind has ever done is "synthetic". If your belief is that humankind is not isolated from nature, therefore everything of this earth or even of this universe is natural, then it would be logical to think that everything that humankind has ever done is "natural". If you believe the earth and everything in existence was created by god, then you would logically assume that everything was created by god, therefore everything is natural, but somewhere along the line of human existence rose an idea that somethings we do or encounter are not natural or synthetic which seems to me to be a fallacy. The idea that something can be less natural or not natural as opposed to synthetic is just a traditional concept that has been misinterpreted for so long that we as a society just accept it as fact, when it may not necessarily be. Social Constructionism! !! !! Of course blueberries are blue, it even has the color they are in the name. It would be silly of me to claim otherwise, but blue is just the name that we as a society have accepted for that particular color. If everyone in society had decided to call that color weeb instead of blue then blueberries would've been weeberries. As long as we as a society accept it to be true, then it is true in a social context. If I considered the name weeberries to be stupid (which I do) and decided to be the only one to call them blueberries, then I would be wrong if the rest of society did consider them to be weeberries, but thankfully we don't. The only stable point in all of this is the color itself. The color in question falls between 450 to 495nm on the visible wavelength scale, but it would not be wrong of me to call that color blue, because that's what the accepted name for that color is. Much of social construction is based on language and accepted terms. Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it's untrue necessarily, but some social constructs may only be true is a social context, but not true in a scientific manner. This debate is not about GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), but I will bring it up as an example. Some people believe GM crops are dangerous. Why? Because of a misunderstanding in what constitutes "natural" and "synthetic". The real fact of the matter is, even before GM crops were created, 90% of the produce that humans consumed were not "natural", they have been altered from their original form so drastically that they would be unrecognizable to our ancestors of 10,000 or more years ago. Even the basic process of farming is not natural. Early humankind has isolated the very best of the edible grasses, berries, and veggies and nuts and destroyed the rest so the next crop was only grown from what they considered the best. This process was repeated over tens of thousands of years, and now today, those crops are unrecognizable from their original form. That's why there's no such thing as wild corn. Some may consider that process to be synthetic, since we've altered the genes of those crops. Some may say it's totally natural since we as humans were made of this earth and naturally evolved just like the rest of the animal kingdom and our natural process of evolution has granted us the ability to grow crops, and GM crops are just a natural evolution to a natural process of crop production. Neither one of those viewpoints are wrong, but they are vastly different, even opposed to each other, but not wrong. In my point of view, the only one I would consider to be misguided is the idea that we can mix and match "natural" based on our additude. If farming is no less synthetic, or no more natural than GMOs are, then what's all the gripe about. In my opinion it's a firm rejection of change. Anti progressive! Just to be clear, calling something a social construct isn't a flat out denial of facts about us, but an acceptance that somethings we consider to be indisputable MAY be more variable or relative then we realize. Just to further clarify, I'm a firm believer in Ayn Rand and her argument for objective reason, so you would be hard pressed to get any "quasicommunist" sentiments out of me! Thank you for reading!