Natural to the Unnatural: Defining a Division

What makes the natural 'unnatural', and how can we pinpoint the division within the process?

This was the question I placed at the centre of The Rustwood Series; a photographic project that can be viewed here. At a glance, the topic may seem to dwell into mindless irrelevance and common sense. However, after finding that others wonder about this process also, I decided to put my thoughts on the question in writing.

As with all questions of philosophy, it is important to choose a specific meaning in relation to each term. This clarifies how we approach the subject as a whole. The question I suppose should be broken down into two parts, as presented above. The first half, in a more 'literal' sense, asks us:

What causes a natural material to become an unnatural material?

• Natural material: Materials which come from animals, plants and rocks - from the earth. Example: Fur, Wood, Bone, Clay, Leather, Metal, Oil

• Unnatural material: Created from natural materials using a chemical process. Example: Nylon, Plastic, Synthetic Cloth

We know that unnatural materials are actually formed from natural materials. Plastic is formed through an undoubtedly complex process using petroleum, a natural substance. Gases are also used, and both these resources are non-renewable, meaning that one day we will become forced to find an alternative. Man-made materials cannot degrade unlike natural materials, thus they are harmful to our planet and wildlife. Maybe this is how the term 'unnatural', or rather 'man-made', gained such an unpopular reputation.

Chemical processing is the answer concerning how natural oil becomes man-made plastic. However, we are not concerned with unnatural materials being formed from natural ones. Our study is centred on man-made objects which are built from natural resources, such as:

- Chairs, from wood

- Cutlery, from metal

- Clothing, from fur

- Pots, from clay

- And many, many more...

We do not view a chair and believe it to be natural. Despite the fact a chair is cleverly built from wood itself, a chair does not grow on it's own accord. Neither would you happen to encounter one in a forest without questioning why it's there, in comical contrast to the woodland which surrounds it. Therefore, we can divide a chair into having three distinct properties:

- Form (shape)

- Substance (material)

- Purpose (why it is built)

Here, we are not discussing these terms in a metaphysical sense such as Plato or Aristotle, instead we are referring to physical attributes of the object. We simply mean that the object has been crafted into a certain shape using a certain natural resource. The chair is created using modified basic shapes, such as rectangles and narrow cylinders. This shape when completed is unnatural, yet the chair is made from a natural substance - so is it natural or unnatural?

Another argument can be made for the nature of the object's purpose. A spoon is made to eat, but we don't necessarily need cutlery in order to do this. A chair is made for the natural need for comfort, but a chair alone is not required to fulfil this need. The purpose here can be considered natural; most objects are made to correspond to a particular human desire or function.

Now, let's consider the second part to the question.

Can we pinpoint the division in this process?

Definition of Natural and Unnatural:

Now we have established an important notion: A natural material (wood) is shaped into an unnatural shape (chair) for a natural purpose (comfort) but is now deemed unnatural.

Why?

Let's explore the definitions of natural and unnatural, this time without relation to materials:

• Natural: In correspondence to, and derived from, nature without the interference of mankind

• Unnatural: Contrary to the ordinary force of nature (artificial)

Hence, when a natural material is turned into an unnatural shape, it no longer corresponds to the force, essence and scientific functions of nature. Perhaps somewhere here we can grasp the chair's defining moment of losing one state in replacement of the other. But from what moment can we say this transformation happens? When the tree is chopped down, and chopped again? Or when the Chair Factory, as we'll affectionately call it, forms the individual parts? Or, when these parts are combined together?

Human contamination could be considered here. However, it should be noted this is not used to create a negative sense, rather as a mere interference of nature's workings. Maybe the moment human hands swing the axe at the tree's trunk, we should say this is the defining moment of change of state. But, if the tree surgeons decided to walk away and never return, leaving the tree with a nasty dent, is this tree now unnatural? Of course not, it still resembles a tree, so it is still a natural tree. So, we need to opt for a deeper explanation.

So far we have discussed this transformation as a mere blink from A (natural) to B (unnatural). But instead, we could view this transformation as a process, as if there's some invisible bar with an unseen percentage, shown in the diagram below:

Can we really allocate a halfway point in this process? It seems ridiculous measuring the time frame between chopping down a tree and the end result of the chair, and then pinpointing the 50% mark and labeling this the turning point between the unnatural and natural.

Although, instead of helping us pinpoint a precise moment, we are becoming further away from the answer to our question. Our resolution does not lie here. In fact, it is beginning to seem impossible to draw a line of closure almost anywhere.

Could this possibly be because natural and unnatural are two states which are invented by humankind? Because we are not the same as everything else, and everything we have made would not naturally be here without us? Is 'unnatural' merely an adjective we have assigned to our creations because we feel separate to nature and the animal kingdom?

Are Humans Natural?

When a bird builds a nest, human perception perceives this nest as still being natural, or in correspondence to the state of nature. In contrast, when a man builds a home, this is unnatural - an interference to the state of nature.

So why do humans feel they are separate to animals, and consequently, nature?

It is no secret that the complexity of human intelligence succeeds that of any other living organism. But it is also no secret that due to this intelligence, humans do not feel they are natural beings, nor that they belong on planet earth. Some believe in God placing them here for a unique purpose, whereas others believe that we are the creation of an extraterrestrial being. Despite what one believes, the feeling of being 'alien' is an emotion which has been present for centuries.

Could this be the real reason that we view a wooden chair as unnatural? A metal spoon as artificial? Does the answer lie within the harsh reality that humans perceive themselves and their creations under this stigma of 'abnormal'? Whilst viewing the term 'unnatural' on an internet thesaurus, suggestions include 'freakish', 'bizarre', 'outlandish' and 'false'? Maybe beneath this all, there is a sad, bitter truth.

But this isn't the case if we return to the concept of form. The shape is artificial, so perhaps this is why humans view a modified piece of wood resembling a chair as unnatural, not because of some darker reason. So, an unnatural chair made of natural wood could be viewed unnatural because:

- Form: The shape of the material couldn't have come about on it's own accord

- Perception: Humans view themselves as creating objects separate to nature

Although, this only works if humans view themselves as 'alien' beings. Humans consist of flesh and bone, the same as other animals, all that sets them apart is their supreme intelligence and abilities. Let's return to the example of a bird building a nest. The shape of a nest, the formation of the twigs, would not come about on it's own.

BIRDS - TWIGS - NEST- NATURAL

HUMANS - WOOD - HOUSE - UNNATURAL

Because we perceive a bird as natural, we perceive the form of the result natural. However, because we perceive ourselves as unnatural, we perceive our structured outcome as unnatural. Even though we are living and breathing the same as a bird, we do not feel our products and ourselves are identical as we have this intelligence which separates us from them.

This brings us back around in a full circle to the less cheerful, shall we say, section of our study. If humans recognized themselves as fully natural beings then all of their products (excluding nylon and plastics) could be viewed as natural too despite their shape. But what about nylon nets and plastic bottles? They can be fully labelled as unnatural in their own respect, for they have a shape which cannot be formed without human interference, and they are made from an artificial material which does not grow on it's own.

Here, we can also consider scale as a reason why humans perceive their creations as unnatural. Compare a village to an ant's nest, a town to a pride, a mansion to a bear cave. Human structures are much grander, more artificial and much harder to destroy. They conquer the landscape with unmissable size and density, destroying animal habitats. Some creatures do benefit from the builds, but these creatures are mainly insects who once discovered are exterminated. Animals who do live in human cages without the conditions they encounter in untouched, wild environments often suffer and are denied the freedom they deserve. Therefore, colossal cities interfere with the course of nature, although they were originally built with stone from the earth. Their creation has ordered the destruction of nature which would still be standing otherwise.

Argument of Natural Decay

We have established a wooden chair is unnatural due to form, perception, and perhaps scale, but it is natural due to the raw materials from which it was created and the instinctive need it was made for. Are there any other reasons to support this chair is still natural? Yes, and this reason is that of natural decay. Left abandoned and neglected, a chair will eventually rot and collapse, technically falling back into the earth from where the tree's roots were initially plucked. However, metal in comparison takes years to decompose after the rusting stages begin. Some metals are not susceptible to rust and will not rust at all. Steels rivets, and sheets of steel decompose extremely slowly. An abandoned car in contrast to a chair has a low biodegradability, thus it is harmful to the environment and to wildlife. Plastic, as a fully man-made example, due to it's extreme serious lack of biodegradability, is deemed as unable to decompose at all.

However, most objects made from natural materials consist of parts which are unnatural. Fur shawls have plastic buttons, wooden chairs have metal rivets which can take hundreds of years to decompose, a clay pot adorned in glass can be estimated in some conditions to take millions of years to degrade. Perhaps this is another reason why a wooden chair is called 'unnatural'; it consists of parts that can harm nature by taking too long to break down. This criticises the above point from natural decay - not all parts of the chair are quick and harmless to decompose.

A bird nest, in comparison, is created from natural twigs which cause no issue for worldly aspects. Hence, a bird nest is natural, and a wooden hut is not.

A Conclusion

In order to close the discussion, let's once again reflect on the question:

What makes the natural 'unnatural', and how can we pinpoint the division within the process?

What makes the natural 'unnatural' is form, perception and sometimes scale. Natural materials are used to create unnatural objects which are difficult to decompose and wouldn't exist without the human hand. Even if humans are natural creatures, despite a majority believing they are not, they are separated from the animal kingdom due to their advanced intelligence (this is not to say animals are not intelligible creatures, they showcase their intelligence in different aspects). Their intelligence enables them to create objects which interfere with the course of nature, and would not exist otherwise. Thus, a chair made from natural wood is still unnatural.

Can we pinpoint this division? No. We cannot point to a stage during the creation of an object and call this the point of transform. We cannot say the moment the tree is chopped down, it is no longer natural, for then it is still raw wood. We can view the creation of the chair as a process, but not the transformation from one state to another. Natural and unnatural are not just mere adjectives, they are a status assigned to something. We can discuss it, though, and decide for ourselves where we think the transformation lies.

In my personal opinion, I do not feel there is a transformation. I feel everything is a matter of perception; and when we perceive a creation's end result, it is then we deem it unnatural.