You Make Me Feel Like A Natural Human

There was a point in our class discussion last week when Stephanie made the statement that humans had "forced their way to the top of the food chain" with guns and other tools.  Someone at the time (if I remember correctly) countered that having the ability to construct these tools could be considered as a legitimate evolutionary advantage, thereby legitimizing humans to be at the top of the food chain.

This general topic has been of interest to me, though I've never really thought it through very far.  There seems to be a problem with either position (whether being advanced enough to construct tools used for elevating our location on the food chain is natural/legitimate or not).  Basically, if it is not considered fair to use the qualities that we gained and maintained through Natural Selection to put ourselves in a better position for survival, then why isn't that fair or natural?  Why is that not considered as a natural ascendence to the top?  Let's say that there is a point of view that claims that it is not natural, and call this Extreme POV 1.

The problem on the other side is, if it is considered natural to use our abilities gained and maintained through Natural Selection, then what is unnatural?  Every single thing that humans have done and will do are a consequence of our abilities.  Does that mean that everything that we do is natural?  Is there such a thing as unnatural, then?  Let's say that there is a point of view that claims that everything is natural, and call this Extreme POV 2.

If one desires consistency in arguing either position, it seems like one would have to be at one complete extreme or the other.  The problem is that, as far as I can figure, every single modern human being LIVES somewhere in between the two extremes, and is left to straddle various contradictions.

The contradictions become clear(er) when considering the human diet.  What is a natural diet?  In the Extreme POV 1, it would seem that it would consist of food that we can acquire and prepare without tools and/or harsh impact on the environment.  That would eliminate the farming of fruits and vegetables, and certainly any animal product that we couldn't capture with our hands and eat without cooking (considering that it takes tools to create fire).  This is the diet that all animals in the wild except for humans eat.  (Another idea to consider, perhaps later, is the diet that humans currently impose on pet, zoo, farm and all other non-wild animals)

In the Extreme POV 2, there would simply be no unnatural diet.  If humans cannot eat raw flesh, then being able to cook it makes it natural to eat because that ability (being able to create fire or other sources of heat) can be traced to our natural ability (being able to create and use tools, as well as learn concepts of what is and isn't safe to eat).  Any conceivable diet would be natural--even the diets that kill us or otherwise ruin our health.  Any conceivable and implementable thing would be natural, such that when a meat-eater says that eating meat is natural (as many are wont to do), that would only be so because every single do-able thing is natural, but this is probably not their reason for claiming the naturalness of eating meat.

So, anyone who eats any way other than in the first extreme (without using tools) who also declares that any thing that a human can do is unnatural will run into some contradiction down the road, where something will be both unnatural and natural, unless very clear lines are drawn where everything on one side of the line will be considered natural and everything on the other side will be considered unnatural.  If those lines are drawn, then there would not be contradictions, but the lines would have to be drawn in arbitrary places (as far as I can figure).

For example, if biology can teach us the ideal human diet, the claim that this diet as acquired via the study (studying with tools and organized thought) of the human body is natural, that diet would be no more natural (no matter which Extreme POV one took) than a diet consisting only of potato chips and Coca-Cola.  Claiming that one diet is more natural than another would bring forth contradictions, and saying that the one acquired via study is more natural because there is proof that it is a healthier diet would be arbitrary as far as the argument of naturalness is concerned.

As I said toward the beginning of the post, I haven't thought this through very far... only just to about here.  That (and the fact that the battery on my laptop is about to die) would suggest that this is the natural place to end this post.