Nothing is really artificial
With World War 1, the great chemical revolution brought to availability a quarter of a million chemical substances. All of those substances were comprised of the ninety-two regenerative chemi-cal elements. They were complex, structural behaviors permitted by Nature. They were not Nature substitutes, though many were called substitutes.
Again, in World War 1, when the large resource mobilization program started, it was found that the inventory of chemical substances known to man had passed two million in number. But many of these substances were as yet called "substitutes" in political, administrative and military Washington. Even today, despite interim development of fundamental knowledge to the contrary, we speak erroneously of “artificial” materials, “synthetics”, and so forth. The basis for this erroneous terminology is the notion that Nature has made certain things which we call natural, and everything else is “man-made”, ergo artificial.
But what one learns in chemistry is that Nature wrote all the rules of structuring; man does not invent chemical structuring rules; he only discovers the rules.
All the chemist can do is find out what Nature permits, and any substances that are thus developed or discovered are inherently natural.
It is very important to remember that
Mariners had painstakingly mapped the coastlines of the continents. Geographers had translated these findings into charts and globes. Photographs of ...
It's the idea that people living close to nature tend to be noble. It's seeing all those sunsets that does it. You can't watch a sunset and then go off and set fire to your neighbor's tepee. Living close to nature is wonderful for your mental health.
But we can easily extend this hypothesis [that nature has beneficial effects on the physical, cognitive and emotional well-being of individuals] to the conservation of biodiversity. [Ecologists] refer to the extinction of the experience of nature, which they have mainly applied in urban areas. The idea is as follows: from generation to generation, young people live less and less in contact with nature (because there are fewer of them and because their lifestyles limit such contact), at the very moment they are building their identity. The part of their identity that integrates their intimate relationships with their natural environment would therefore diminish from generation to generation. Not because of a lack of education, but mainly because of a decline in opportunities and desires to experience nature without constraint, freely and in their own personal way.
The consequences of this decrease appear in adulthood: with a weaker environmental identity, they are less in demand for nature in their daily lives, they integrate it less in their actions. (...) But if we do not collectively take biodiversity into consideration in our lifestyles, then we will suffer.
An inefficient virus kills its host. A clever virus stays with it.