It’s sometimes practical to make a distinction between something natural and something man-made, but such a distinction is also a bit ludicrous.

Most people could come to a consensus that humans are natural, and from there it would only take one person to put forth the argument that since we are natural, everything we do/make is natural. This argument supports the assertion that human social behavior is a fractal. Clearly, one needs to define terms. But defining terms is a losing battle.

Consider this seemingly gentle example: man-made objects can only be considered unnatural if what is natural is defined as what exists in nature prior to man constructing anything. But what of beavers? According to the given definition, a beaver’s dam is natural. Why not then a human home? It’s absurd to believe that a house is any less natural than a dam.

The only way I can see the natural vs. man-made distinction legitimately being made is if humans are defined as being unnatural, and that’s an assertion not likely to be spoken soon. In the meantime, the distinction remains a half-truth suspended in its associated confusion.