I recently posted here regarding people undergoing medical treatment to ostensibly change their gender. Of course, as we can't actually change our DNA, the degree to which we really can change our gender is questionable. What we're really doing is changing the perception of gender, not our genetic gender assignment. And that lead me to think of this.
Chilean couple, 1940, no doubt a lot more natural than "all natural" folks today, in every sense.
In our world today, westerners (residents of Europe and North America) are huge on things being "all natural". It's the rage, and it doesn't appear to be going away any time soon. And I'm not really criticizing it, as my agrarian leanings make me sympathetic, when its done in the messy, bloody, muddy way of actual nature. I'm not so sympathetic with the fanciful fake natural way that some who fear real nature would have it.
So, in this era of all natural, we have "natural" organic foods of all types. Natural organic oatmeal (maybe even better if from Ireland and cut with steel), organic vegetables, grass fed beef. You name it.
Indeed, entire sections of the European and North American populations are at war with any genetically altered foods of any kind, although it must be noted in fairness that nearly every food we eat was selectively bred that way so as to alter it from its original form, save for people who eat fairly primitive foods and hunt and fish. Indeed, ironically for some of these folks, our meat sources tend to be much less genetically altered by selective breeding than our plant foods. Cows, for example, differ little from aurochs.
Frequently satirical copied World War Two era poster. Presenting an idealistic image, the mother and daughter in fact represent Americans who were a lot more "natural" than nearly any living today.
People have taken this one step further and now, in some hip circles, want their foods to be produced all locally. Again, I'm not criticizing that. I have some sympathy for it, being a fan of systems and realizing how odd some of our food production chain actually is. I used to grow a big garden myself, and miss doing so, which sort of taps into this.
And we have all natural concerns expressing themselves in clothing. I know of people who will only wear "all natural fibers". Not liking synthetics much, I trend that way, although I do like the storm proof hoodies that are now out there, which make for great winter insulation.
Some folks, however, have gone even one step further there, and insist that their fibers, if plant derived, also be organic, out of an apparent concern for the environment.
All really big in Europe and North America, particularly with the upper class, the upper middle class, and the university crowd.
So why don't we apply it to ourselves?
It's really interesting. We are now the least "natural" and "organic" we have ever been, and this includes a lot of people in the "all natural" and "organic" crowed.
If nature is good, shouldn't it be good for us too? Why don't we go "organic"?
What do I mean, well consider this.
This Tlingit couple is a lot more natural than darned near any modern American, and in part for reason that we hardly even consider.
Let's go back to the story that proceeds this one on this blog, which I reference above. Nature determined your gender. The natural and organic thing to do is to go with that. That's natural. Surgery and chemicals to change that aren't natural, they're unnatural and in-organic.
So too, I might add, is the ingestion of chemical compounds designed to interrupt the natural byproducts of those genders and their interactions, i.e., stop the creation or, as they actually will sometimes apparently do, stop the implanting of tiny human beings that come about when two big human beings of opposite genders become, well. . . .. Indeed, it's becoming more and more evident that only is that not natural, but it's also dangerous for the women who take them. I have to wonder if those pharmaceuticals were being introduced for the first time today, if they'd long last the resulting lawsuits that came about over some of those questions. But, no matter, litigation isn't the point, nature is. Messing with that is counter to nature, and most things we do with our bodies that are artificial have some sort of bad psychical or psychological result.
And on that particular topic, the psychology of this works the way it always has, creating a mess of people's lives who have otherwise defeated the natural, which then works to make all of our lives more messy and less natural. And in terms of culture, the den of unnatural, Hollywood, doesn't even seemingly know what the purpose and results of two genders is, which is quite unnatural. By extension, a lot of people in society today don't either. Indeed, quite a few people have become confused enough about it that they now self identify based on their concept of their gender, which is really odd and not natural. That is, they don't identify by their culture, but by an attraction, which is not what nature would provide, no matter what their attraction.
Not to seem to leave men alone on the disruption of nature by physical or chemical means brought up above, having surgery to frustrate the same thing isn't very darned natural either.
Now, having surgery is something I'm not advocating against. We've learned how to address many illnesses and defects surgically, and that's a great blessing. No, what I'm talking about is surgery upon a healthy and functioning body. That is, to defeat the way the body is designed to work. That's not in keeping with nature.
Cosmetic surgery sure isn't natural either, when looked at this way. Or at least some of it isn't I understand, and certainly do not oppose, surgery that is designed to fix a physical defect, no matter how derived, but surgery merely to make a nose look different, or worse to make certain attributes artificially bigger is extremely unnatural. So is surgery to counter the effects of our appearance as we age. We all age, and not looking like we are doesn't actually make us look any better as a rule, just artificial.
Diets (which is where this conversation started out) designed around a social construct aren't natural either. So, vegans, you aren't natural. Not that I'm saying that the American diet is 100% good for you. I'm not. But what I am saying is that people who delude themselves into thinking that being a vegan, or a vegetarian, is a good thing for philosophical reasons are wildly off based. You weren't designed by nature to be a cow. And your body knows that which means you'll have to do a lot of effort to defeat the fact that you are an omnivore, not a plant eating mammal. That's just nature.
Young farm couple in town, 1930s. Yes, they're not hipsters. . . they they're a lot more natural that probably anyone reading this.
No comments:
Post a Comment