Or, as Terry Pratchett so eloquently put it in The Fifth Elephant:

> “Not natural, in my view, sah. Not in favor of unnatural things.”

> Vetinari looked perplexed. “You mean, you eat your meat raw and sleep in a tree?”

The opposite end of that spectrum is everyone here who thinks we should just ignore nature and where we came from since we’ve conquered it, or something. I’m not sure what you all are arguing here. We’re still a part of nature, we’ll discover that quickly if society collapses.

I think there can be a middle ground here. Yes the appeal to nature fallacy is a thing. However, it's not obviously wrong to say that humans evolved in a specific environment, and to question whether moving them to a completely different environment is going to make their life worse.

We evolved living in smaller cooperative groups, and spending most of our time in nature. The farther we move away from that the more we might want to question whether any individual change is actually going to make our life better. Likely some tradeoffs are absolutely worth it and some probably not.

I think this is fair criticism. It's hard to read this blog cause its premise is based on an "appeal to nature" fallacy.

"Natural" is something that happens "by itself", for free, without your having to exert an effort to produce it. If it happens to be something beneficial, it should be incorporated and used to your advantage.

There's a lot more nuance to the "natural" conversation than the assumption that we should go back to stone tools and all die before we hit 25. I've not really seen someone with that general belief, and I'm one of them myself, argue for such an all-or-nothing approach.

It's about balance.

> We are "naturally" meant to die at 21

Not really? Historical life expectancies were low because it was so common to die in infancy and childhood (thus dragging down the "average").

For people who made it to 20, it was common to live past 60.

I wish i could upvote you seven times