Nature, Warm and Fuzzy

By -
I was hosting a guest from Europe, and we were touring Milford. She wandered off on her own, and I caught up with her as she was about to put some berries in her mouth. Poison berries, from a pokeweed. I stopped her literally with the berries at her lips.

How could someone visiting a strange continent think it is cool to just pop things picked off an unfamiliar plant into one's mouth? Well, my guess: the prevalent idea that "natural" things are generally good for you, and "artificial" things usually bad. I recall someone else actually saying to me once, "Well, it's all natural: how bad could it be for you?"

When I noted that rattlesnake poison and toadstools and radon are also all natural, she was a bit flummoxed.

I just encountered a particularly amusing example of this sort of nature worship on a bottle of weed killer I purchased: The label read: "Active ingredient iron, derived from natural sources."

It's good to know they aren't getting their iron from the spirit world.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy2:56 PM

    I don't know the woman, Gene, but it's possible she contemplated spending more time with you, and decided the berries were the better route.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9:49 AM

    the world is my metaphysic, I shall not want. . .ever seen a bottle of Burt's Bees shampoo? "97.4% Natural" they claim! http://www.burtsbees.com/natural-products/hair-shampoos/baby-bee-shampoo-wash.html the rest, we are left to assume, is supernatural. I washed my hair with some liquid Jesus last night!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more