ok ok, humans aren't nature..I guess we are gods.

So a better title would be: Scientists design the first semisynthetic cell.

Of course we are all humans and humans are natural. But that doesn't mean everything man-made is natural. The only point to the word "Natural" is to distinguish something man-made from something that is not.

I never said humans weren't nature. We obviously are, but gods would be natural too.

But how is that a useful distinction. Why should things made by one kind of ape be natural while stuff made by another kind of ape is termed 'unnatural'? What's the difference?

Its nice that the creators wrote their names into its chemical DNA code though, it will be interesting to see where and how this "novel bacterium and all its descendants" will show up...

"Asserted ownership" is a fickle concept... its favor seems to lean on those who have the advantages of an excessive monetary backing to influence their arguments, at least in our current dominant society....

It's actually a very useful distinction, it distinguishes between man-made and not man-made.

One of those apes is human and one is not. If apes were out forging steel and building cars then I don't think it would be considered natural. It's common sense man.

Why does it matter? Because some people care if they are eating an orange or a chemical that is made to taste like an orange.

But that doesn't exactly clear up why it's a useful distinction, does it? You're just repeating your definition as a justification for making the distinction



I'm afraid you'll have to spell out the reasoning for me here... where do we draw the line between what actions committed by naturally-occuring organisms are natural, and which are unnatural? Spiders create silk that has tremendous tensile strength to make their webs, a technology arguably on par with forging steel, yet it does not strike us as unnatural.



But that's not really the nature of your objection, is it? Your reason for not wanting to eat a human product made with chemicals designed to taste like oranges is simply because it was made by humans? Am I to assume that you similarly eschew bread, yoghurt, cheese, pickles, lutefisk, and all the other various foodstuffs created by humans through the application of chemical or biochemical processes? What about houses, plumbing, sanitation, musical instruments, and all the other various "unnatural" developments of humans? Do you categorically reject everything made by humans?

Or is your objection in truth more pragmatic: Orange flavoring lacks the nutritive value that oranges have, you may be concerned about possible effects of longterm exposure, it just doesn't taste like the real thing, the chemical feedstocks used in their production may be unsustainable/environmentally unsound, etc.

I don't want to eat amatoxins, but it's not because they were created by mushrooms. Where they come from is incidental. My objection is to the effects that they have upon my person.

That's why I question the usefulness of the distinction between things made by humans and things made by everything else. Human inventions to which we have objections or concerns are not concerning simply because they were made by a human. They are concerning due to specific features which we find objectionable. Just as some things made by other creatures may be concerning or objectionable. We can be upset when a newly-built dam floods a beautiful valley burying the transcendant scenery under water, regardless of whether that dam was made by beavers or by humans.

I don't know how I can spell it out to you. You are asking what the word "Natural" means. It is commonly used to distinguish between something that is made by a human being and something that is found in nature without the hands of man. It may not be a useful distinction to you, but most of the world it is. I'm not justifying anything. I'm telling you what the word "Natural" is typically defines as.




Humans. Human beings is where the world generally draws the line. You on the other hand I can not say. To you the word "Natural" really has no meaning since under your definition there is NOTHING that is un-natural.



Although I do prefer natural products, to me honestly it is not a big deal. But we are not talking about me personally were talking about the word Natural and its meaning. I don't think anyone said they wont use anything that isn't considered "Natural". Do I categorically reject everything made by humans? WTF! Bro, you are loosing it. I use the internet, I drive a car, I use an Iphone, I work in the tech industry...... I love technology I derive my income off technology. What are you making these assumptions on? Because I am explaining to you how the world generally excepts the word Natural?





Honestly, I don' care how you use the word natural. This is becoming very redundant.

I agree wholeheartedly with entropymancer. But you already knew that.

Here's an example that might hit home:

Dmt extracted from mhrb with naptha and lye. Man-made? unnatural ?(safe to say mhrb is unlikely to run into the correct quantities of these chemicals in the correct order without human intervention)

is it any less or more synthetic than dmt cobbled together in a lab from molecules culled from natural sources? Why? Ultimately all things if you dig deep enough are by default from natural sources. If it is the human manipulation that renders something unnatural or synthetic, then there is no way around it - our mhrb extractions (or cooking curry over fire or electrical heat) is unnatural and by definition synthetic. Question of degree? then draw me the line and provide examples and exclude mine.

Btw, i do agree that the term natural is redundant and meaningless. That has been my main point so far.

JBArk

I didn't say something is synthetic if it is not natural.
But, you guys are going off on a tangent. You can use the word "Natural" in any way your little hearts desire.

My only point from the beginning is how the WORLD views the word Natural. If the word is useless to you, then don't use it. Simple. No harm no foul.

But this is not synthetic. You are not using the word correctly. You are using chemicals to get to something that already exists in a basic form. Does the lye and naptha morph the basic chemicals of the bark to create DMT? No, it is a method of taking what is already there and extracting it. That is not synthetic.

Now, the 2C-?. Those are synthetic. Taking the basic tryptamine (sorry if this is not the base structure, but you know what I mean) structure and adding differernt components to it to get a particular result. These substances do not occur in nature. We cannot find a plant or any substance that contains them. They were synthetically created in a lab using our understanding of chemistry.

Same with this synthetic cell. It does not exist anywhere in the world, except for this one test tube, and it wouldn't have been there if not for the understaning of chemistric and biology of the humans who created it. I understand the point people are making that if humans created it, then it is natural. But this, as I said before is a logical fallacy due to our need to use language.

How can something that is synthetic be natural?

The antonym of synthetic is natural. Therefore you cannnot say that something that is not natural (by definition) is natural. Not natural = natural? No.

Yea, I too agree with just about Entropymancer has said up to this point.


Synthetic
1 a: relating to or involving synthesis

Synthesis
1 a : the composition or combination of parts or elements so as to form a whole b : the production of a substance by the union of chemical elements, groups, or simpler compounds or by the degradation of a complex compound c : the combining of often diverse conceptions into a coherent whole; also : the complex so formed

The antonym of natural isn't synthetic...it's artificial. Where are you getting these ideas from?

Synthetic does not comment on whether something is natural or artificial, just that there was a synthesis...just because something does not exist on earth does not mean it is synthetic or unnatural. The entire universe is a natural system. Anything found within this natural system would have to be natural, at the very least in its origin, would it not? Would it not have to rise from natural components and thus be natural in origin, at least? Just because something does not exist on Earth without humans synthesizing it (which would not necessarily make it "unnatural" ) does not mean it could not exist "naturally" elsewhere in the universe. This seems to be a very short-sighted and counter-productive argument.

Spiders synthesize silk, wasps synthesize the materials for their nests, we are animals, this argument for our "unnatural" behaviors, actions, or products seems to be a very ethnocentric model. I don't really understand how you could claim our synthesis in any field is different or special so as to be "unnatural" when compared to what we see in the world around us.

Those of you who disagree with the definition of natural.

Can you please cite something that is "Un-Natural" based on your definition?

Do you agree or disagree that most of the world would agree with these statements?

A tree is natural.
A car is not natural.
A ladybug is natural.
A robot is not natural.
Water is natural.
Pepsi is not natural.
A nuclear power plant is not natural.

Are the stars not nuclear power plants? I'll grant you that they are not what you were thinking of when you posted this, but by definition, are they not?

You are not using the correct definition of the word for the context in which we are having this discussion. You are cherry picking a definition that is irrelevant. If that was the definition of importance then I would agree. There was a synthesis of chemicals that created it. But that is not the discussion. The relevant defintions of synthetic are:

syn·thet·ic   /sɪnˈθɛtɪk/
–adjective
2.noting or pertaining to compounds formed through a chemical process by human agency, as opposed to those of natural origin.

5.not real or genuine; artificial; feigned.

And its Antonyms: genuine, natural, real

You also did not read my comment correctly. I did not say that the antonym of natural is synthetic. I said the antonym of synthetic is natural. But a distinction that is irrelevant as well since an antonym of natural is artificial, and atrificial is a synonym of synthetic therefore the antonym of natural can also by synthetic.

Synthetic does not equal natural.

Come on SnozzleBerry, you know what I'm saying MAN MADE here on earth.
What about the question I asked? Without trying to be witty, honestly answer it.

A star is not a nuclear power plant. It is a form of nuclear fusion, but it is not a "plant". Therefore the plant is not natural, but a star is.

The thing is, she knows that. They all do. It's common sense but for some reason their egos are keeping it going.

First off I'm a HE.

Second, I conceded that it was not what you were referring to but that it still fit and was at odds with your distinction...this is not about ego...please keep this civil.

Finally using the following accepted definition(s) of plant, the stars qualify as nuclear power plants:

"b) the total facilities available for production or service c)the physical equipment used for production or manufacturing goods"


I'm really not trying to be base or egoic, I'm trying to discuss something with you about which we disagree. There is no need for insults or name calling and I would greatly appreciate it if we could all be civil as we move forward. If this can't happen, maybe it's best we terminate this discussion before things get ugly.