I think it rather curious, and a variety of metaphysical madness, that the efforts of humans to so alter and adjust existence are denounced as “unnatural” by ecological mystics who never complain that the rat’s efforts to better it’s lot are “unnatural.” Since neither humans nor rats can actually do anything unnatural, this popular mysticism seems to signify only that some people like rats better than they like humans.
– Robert Anton Wilson
Well, nuclear bombs don’t exactly grow on trees…
Nuclear fission – a chemical reaction – allows for the bomb’s destructive power.
what I was trying to say was that human ingenuity is responsible for things like nukes, which is why people complain about it. Rats, whose technological reach extends as far as nibbling holes in things, aren’t worth causing a stink over by comparison. That being said, the chief method employed by rats to improve their lot – nibbling into storage buildings and containers, and eating and shitting all over food supplies – doesn’t make them any more likeable than humans; they’re just not worried about as much because they’re easier to deal with, and far less destructive.
I think what he means is “I don’t believe the concept of ‘unnatural’ is a legitimate one.” Which means he’s mostly just haggling semantics, cause a rose by any other name….
Probably the best thing is to simply use the word ‘artificial’ instead of the word ‘unnatural’. He seems to mostly have a problem with the word ‘unnatural’ and I can see where that comes from but in practice it is also a synonym for ‘artificial’.