Against the appeal to nature fallacy

An eternal thought flame that should be extinguished

This photograph may look like an entry to the gates of hell, but it actually depicts the natural fire of Yanar Dağ in Azerbaijan. Also known as an eternal flame, the fire burns constantly, fuelled by gas emissions from vents in the sandstone formations. The methane-fuelled fires at Yanar Dağ have been burning for around 2,500 years and have become a popular tourist attraction, alongside the other eternal flames dotted around the world. As the name indicates, these eternal flames burn perpetually, surviving the elements and people’s attempts to extinguish them.

Now consider this: if this same image was of a human-made gas fire developed to meet our energy needs, would it still be a bucket list item? Would people still consider it to be a beautiful thing? I think we all know that the answer is no, but why not? 

Because the fire is considered to be ‘natural’.

Welcome to the appeal to nature fallacy. This logical fallacy occurs when people assume that something is good because it is perceived as ‘natural’, while something is bad because it's ‘unnatural’ or ‘artificial’. The eternal flames are a pertinent example of the flaws of this argument, but the world around us is rife with other examples.

The very basic premise of the appeal to nature fallacy is that anything that is natural cannot be wrong, as if naturalness is itself a kind of authority. The fundamental problem with this argument is that it’s impossible to define what ‘natural’ means. After all, aren’t humans natural beings? If so, isn’t anything we do to ensure our survival therefore natural? Instead, we typically think of such tools as forms of technology and lump them into groups of what we feel is natural versus what isn’t. With nature fallacy, it’s easy to pick apart the argument once you dig a little deeper than the vibes on the surface, but still, the idea persists across populations worldwide.

Worse, there are countless examples of authority figures making decisions based on the appeal to nature fallacy, or, as I like to say, based on vibes.

Consider the prevalence of organic and ‘natural’ food and clothing, which people spend large amounts of money on because they believe the marketing that it’s better for them. There’s also so-called ‘chemical-free’ food (which, if it were true, would be a miracle since everything is made up of chemicals), misinformation about processed food, and so on, which people fall for because it feels like it makes sense.

Consider the humble banana:

Everything is chemicals

There’s also ‘alternative medicine’ like homeopathy, which up until 2017 was funded by the National Health Service in England. Add to that reiki, naturopathy, and herbal medicine, and in the US, there’s something called ‘energy healing’, which involves using magnets for ‘magnetic therapy’. You might laugh, but a poll found that 14% believed this to be ‘very scientific’, and 54% said it was ‘sort of scientific’. So maybe you won’t laugh. Perhaps you, too, believe that magnets can alleviate pain and help your body to heal. 

If so, you are, of course, entitled to your beliefs, but when there isn’t empirical evidence to show their efficacy, should the taxpayer have to fund these ridiculous forms of quackery? 

Not only does this woo inform policy, influence what gets built and invested in and what gets banned, but when we aren’t on guard for it, it warps the way we think collectively as well.

Multiple studies into all of these examples of pseudo-medicine have found that they lack biological plausibility, testability, repeatability, and evidence of effectiveness. Nevertheless, the placebo effect exists, and people still believe in using alternative remedies despite all evidence to the contrary. They feel they work because they feel more ‘natural’ than the proven alternatives (hence, vibes). 

Contrary to popular belief, falling for nature fallacy isn’t related to how much education a person receives. Appeal to nature fallacy is endemic, crossing cultures, political lines, class systems and religions. For example, the highly educated King Charles III is the Patron of an organisation that promotes homeopathy. He also uses a homeopath and has heavily promoted pseudo-medicine for decades. He advocates for organic farming despite plenty of evidence to demonstrate its flaws.

Then there is the sheer number of celebrities who market expensive products on the basis that they are ‘natural’. To name a few famous examples, we have actress Gwyneth Paltrow’s promotion of vaginal steaming, jade eggs and cleansing enemas, actor Woody Harrelson’s crusade that 5G networks cause respiratory infections and Covid, and - freshly announced this week - activist Russell Brand’s ‘magical amulet’ which he claims that can protect users from ‘evil energies’, which retails for a whopping $239.99. It’s easy to make fun of uterus cleanses and magic amulets, but the sad fact is that fear mongering works, and countless victims fall for it.

You might say that we can all live without high speed internet (and we can agree to disagree), but we should find it concerning when cleanses and amulets are used to replace proven medical practices. Victims who fall for fear mongering are more common than you might realise - take the example of the late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, who was diagnosed with a rare neuroendocrine tumour in 2003. This type of pancreatic cancer has a 95% chance of survival with early surgery. Sadly, although it was caught early, Jobs initially chose to forgo surgery, opting instead for alternative remedies like acupuncture, bowel cleansings and fruit juices. When these didn’t work, he finally had the surgery, but it was too late, and he died of pancreatic cancer in 2011. Jobs later said that he regretted not having the surgery sooner. It’s a tragic story of a preventable death and one that’s becoming all too common.

I’ve heard some anti-medicine advocates argue that illnesses that can’t be treated with alternative medicine are ‘nature’s way’ of taking care of population size. With the utmost respect, my response to that is: absolutely effing not.

Corn has been bred via artificial selection for thousands of years. Source

If you consider it for long enough, you’ll likely find some beliefs based on the nature fallacy that you’ve fallen for without realising.

Here are some examples that you may have heard and believed: our food system is broken; pesticides and fertilisers are making us sick; living on the land is better than modern civilisation; chemicals are harmful; organic foods and farming are better for human health and the environment; radiation is unnatural and dangerous; GMOs are causing mutations in humans; MMR vaccines are causing autism; 5G masts are causing cancer and Covid; sugar is making children hyperactive; and so on. Anti nuclear arguments also have nature fallacy at their core.

Now, let’s consider reality. Remove the appeal to nature lens, and there is ample research proving all of these claims to be false:

Food productivity has never been better thanks to advances in technology; subsistence farming means returning to poverty and most people don’t want to live that way; pesticides and fertilisers enable us to feed millions of people; everything is made up of chemicals; organic farming is not better for the environment or human health; radiation is natural, surrounds us and humans are radioactive; virtually no food is natural as humans have changed it in some way at some point in time; gene-editing saves lives; vaccines do not cause autism and there’s nothing wrong with being autistic and even if it were true it would still preferable to dying from measles/mumps/rubella; and some studies suggest that sugar may have a calming effect because it produces serotonin. Nuclear reactors are the most natural form of energy with the most significant benefit for nature - but making such a statement is still seen as controversial and biased despite masses of data to back it up.

Occasionally, an absurd appeal to nature perspective rears its head publicly and enables people to marvel at it together. Recently, several about drinking ‘raw water’ from natural sources have gone viral, since this water is dangerous to drink. So-called ‘raw water’ is rife with bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can result in waterborne diseases, including cryptosporidiosis or giardiasis. There’s a reason we have filtration systems and methods of ensuring that our tap water is safe to drink. But try telling Tristan that.

Another example is a post that recently went viral for celebrating the idea of replacing washing machines with communal hand washing. My counterargument using Hans Rosling’s talk on washing machines and how they have liberated millions of people, especially women, from the drudgery of laborious labour, quickly ratioed the original post, but the OP, Aashis, was undeterred and doubled down on his argument. 

Aashis was saying the quiet part out loud: his perspective underpins the thinking behind the degrowth movement, which romanticises poverty and has gained so much credibility in recent years that the European Parliament has embraced it.

Hippies have always believed that humans have gotten it wrong, that civilisation and development are evil and ‘living on the land’ with minimal technology is the way to save our souls, but the fact that this influences policy ought to be concerning to those of us who can see the façade. It’s much more severe than being denied high-speed internet - the appeal to nature fallacy has also led to keeping life-saving gene technologies from the world’s poorest, most vulnerable people.

Just as laborious, time-consuming labour is beautiful to people who consider it to be more ‘natural’ than using a washing machine, tourists visit eternal flames. But the same people also dislike the idea of burning natural gas, coal or methane, which is what’s happening with these flames. In Mount Wingen in New South Wales, Australia, an eternal flame caused by a smouldering coal seam underneath the surface has been burning for over 6,000 years. Coal seam fires are estimated to contribute 3% of the world's annual carbon dioxide emissions, releasing mercury and other pollutants into the atmosphere. So even though it’s a coal fire, the idea prevails that it must be pure because ‘nature’ created it, so ‘sustainability’ sites like Treehugger call it a ‘fascinating phenomenon’ which ‘holds spiritual significance in some cultures and religions’.  Apparently, when nature is damaging the planet, that’s A-OK.

Nature fallacy may be ridiculous on closer inspection, but it’s still incredibly persuasive. It’s almost as if we are wired to believe in it. As with all logical fallacies, it’s possible to combat the appeal to nature fallacy by examining and challenging our ideas and beliefs. Conversations with peers regarding the danger of nature fallacy can also be effective when approached in a relatively indirect, non-confrontational manner. I’m of the opinion that logical fallacies and other critical thinking skills should be taught in schools to provide buffers for people who are more susceptible to them. Had these skills been taught when atomic power was implemented, there may not have been such a successful backlash against nuclear energy during the hippy golden era.

Distorted thinking based on the appeal to nature fallacy is the root of many world problems, preventing access to countless life-saving technologies and keeping us from balancing our needs alongside those of the environment. Nature fallacy is a sick delusion that is holding us back as a species. We need to put it to bed.