Unnaturalness

Resumen

A popular objection to various applications of biotechnology is that they are ‘unnatural.’ The objection is usually dismissed by academics and policy-makers alike. Sometimes it is treated by them as a mere expression of distaste. At other times ‘being unnatural’ is confused with ‘being artificial,’ a confusion which then feeds the misguided observation that if you object to unnaturalness as such, you will end up objecting to almost everything that humans do. Either way, the supposed consequence is that the objection can safely be ignored. In response, this paper takes some initial steps towards rescuing the concept of unnaturalness as a potential term of critical appraisal in public policy. First, an analysis of the concept is offered that differentiates it from concepts with which it is commonly confused and identifies that feature of a thing, event or action that the term is commonly used to designate. Second, this analysis is used to illustrate the kinds of discrimination that the term, thus understood, might usefully be deployed to express. It is concluded that the concept of ‘unnaturalness’ could mark out a valuable space for critical reflection both in the environmental sphere and, increasingly, in the sphere of medical technology.

Key words: Artificial, nature, natural, culture, biotechnology, medical interventions, critical reflection, norm of nature, normal, abnormal, ordinary, extraordinary.