[Bored chemist]

Since nothing that I can think of meets your criteria for unnatural, your definition seems as pointless as the one I gave (and I did it for effect). I may be mistaken, what man made object would survive geological subduction? Most wouldn't do well in a decent forrest fire.

However "natural" does have another opposite- it means "not supernatural".
I think the original post was using "natural" as if being "natural" had some magical benefit beyond being environmentally friendly, which seems ironic to me as that's the opposite of natural.

As I see it the problem that needs to be solved is why bother to ask if something is natural (by whatever definition) when we should be worried about the effect it has rather than it's origin.
I think part of this problem is that people have, historically, not thought of themselves as part of the environment. For practically the whole of humanity's existence we have thrown "away" stuff we didn't want without realising that there is no "away". That's why the CO2 from fossil fuels and the lead in petrol or whatever have come back to haunt us.
The sooner we realise that we are part of the environment the better.
If I chose to point that out by saying that we are bad for it then that seems to me to be a reasonable way to make that point.
If we were not part of the environment we couldn't harm it- we do, so we must be.
Since we are part of it, we ought to look after it.
The question of what is or isn't natural doesn't seem to matter much and blaming "unnatural" stuff (whatever that might mean) is a distraction we don't need.

[Karsten]

I completely agree with this:

I think part of this problem is that people have, historically, not thought of themselves as part of the environment. For practically the whole of humanity's existence we have thrown "away" stuff we didn't want without realising that there is no "away". That's why the CO2 from fossil fuels and the lead in petrol or whatever have come back to haunt us.
The sooner we realise that we are part of the environment the better.
(...)
If we were not part of the environment we couldn't harm it- we do, so we must be.
Since we are part of it, we ought to look after it.

However, I think what you say here should be regarded more carefully:

Since nothing that I can think of meets your criteria for unnatural, your definition seems as pointless as the one I gave (and I did it for effect). I may be mistaken, what man made object would survive geological subduction? Most wouldn't do well in a decent forrest fire.

For all practical purposes it seems valid to look at what happens to any material in our environment during the next, say, 1000 years. This has nothing to do with origin, the fact that something may last in our environment for 1000 years or longer is an effect on our environment. Certainly not by geological standards, but probably by human standards. Of course, 100000 years from now any currently human-made material may be completely benign, but it seems strange to consider this when discussing human welfare today and in the near future. BTW, I would not be surprised if a decent forest fire would change a few human-made materials in ways that are not really to our liking. I believe dioxins were a result of burning trash, but I do not know if that can be compared to the temperatures of a forest fire.

As I see it the problem that needs to be solved is why bother to ask if something is natural (by whatever definition) when we should be worried about the effect it has rather than it's origin.
(...)
The question of what is or isn't natural doesn't seem to matter much and blaming "unnatural" stuff (whatever that might mean) is a distraction we don't need.

I agree that the effects of any material and action may be more relevant than its origin, however, the origin is not irrelevant. You need to know where and how mistakes may have been made in order to avoid them in the future. We cannot continue to worry about the effects of materials and action only after it has been shown that the effects are negative. It may be paralyzing to our want to innovate, but it seems that slower progress may be wiser than our fast pace developments of the past. This includes human-made materials and their effects (and duration in the environment is one). If human made materials and  human procedures are thought through to the end (that is back to the beginning), maybe we would have fewer problems. This is not a distraction, this is being honest about human technology history. It is an important part of the learning process. Without it mistakes will be repeated. Analyzing it will not solve problems - it will however reduce the chances for creating similar problems again.

[yor_on]

Karsten I agree with you in that we need 'objective' supervising and longterm  testing, especcially when it comes to genetic and nanno innovations. There is a long way to go before anyone can say that they know what our genes f ex. really do. To lift forward just one gene and say that 'this gene is responsible for this' is something we seem to do often those days, and then we patent it and try it out:) but my guess is that there is a lot interconnections between genes we don't know a thing about, just as an example. and the same goes for nanno materials, at least as far as they are new combinations to nature and biological material (us:). What facility can today guarantee that they don't have any 'spill' when it comes to that size of material. The more advanced we get in our manipulations, the better our control needs to be it seems to me.

[Bored chemist]

Dioxins (more specifically chlorinated dibenzodioxins) were created in forrest fires long before man came along. They are exactly the sort of natural thing you might worry about.

We may need to worry about dioxins in our environment even though they are natural.

As I said, the origin isn't the issue; the effect is. Sunlight is natural, does that mean we don't have to worry about it causing skin cancer?
What you ought to do is (so far as I can tell) to look at the risk from all these things (and many more of course) and also the benfit that they produce.
Then do a risk benefit analysis and seee what the outcome of that analysis is. The origin simply doesn't come into it.

[Karsten]

Dioxins (more specifically chlorinated dibenzodioxins) were created in forrest fires long before man came along. They are exactly the sort of natural thing you might worry about.

We may need to worry about dioxins in our environment even though they are natural.

As I said, the origin isn't the issue; the effect is. Sunlight is natural, does that mean we don't have to worry about it causing skin cancer?
What you ought to do is (so far as I can tell) to look at the risk from all these things (and many more of course) and also the benfit that they produce.
Then do a risk benefit analysis and seee what the outcome of that analysis is. The origin simply doesn't come into it.

We might be splitting hairs here.

I consider the origin of a material relevant since it points out who is responsible for its existence. It allows us to control the substance/effect better. What would be the point of investigating a material that is found in nature but not where it comes from? You find out it is undesirable and then? You need to be able to pin point the source. Of course the source ALONE means nothing (and way too many people think that anything human made is evil). But the risk/benefit analysis serves nothing if you have no knowledge of the origin. You will need to know if the material is undesired (in order to possibly limit more of it) or if the material is desired (to not protect the source or figure out how to make more).

I did not know that dioxins can be a result of forest fires. Interesting. However, according to wikipedia 80% of dioxins are a result of:     
* Coal fired utilities
* Municipal waste incinerators[1]
* Metal smelting
* Diesel trucks
* Land application of sewage sludge
* Burning treated wood
* Trash burn barrels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxin#Sources_of_dioxins

Is that sort of knowledge about the source for this stuff not relevant? The origin simply does not come into this?

[Karsten]

Karsten I agree with you in that we need 'objective' supervising and longterm  testing, especcially when it comes to genetic and nanno innovations. There is a long way to go before anyone can say that they know what our genes f ex. really do. To lift forward just one gene and say that 'this gene is responsible for this' is something we seem to do often those days, and then we patent it and try it out:) but my guess is that there is a lot interconnections between genes we don't know a thing about, just as an example. and the same goes for nanno materials, at least as far as they are new combinations to nature and biological material (us:). What facility can today guarantee that they don't have any 'spill' when it comes to that size of material. The more advanced we get in our manipulations, the better our control needs to be it seems to me.

I fear that, while technology can be very safe, it is only as safe as the people who put it together or use it. It is linked to the level of caring, the level of education, and the level of funding. Any of those levels go down - the safety of the technology comes into question. Now think about our global economic down-turn. How long until we need to implement some "short-cuts" to save money? How long until people with less education become supervisors because they are less expensive? Is nuclear power (for instance) only safe in times/places of incredible prosperity?

[Bored chemist]

Lets get back to the original question.
"We all should encourage the use of natural and environment friendly objects at our homes and other places.  Let’s stop using products that are harmful and work towards a greener and healthier environment."
In that context it doesn't matter if the "product" is natural or not. We generally ought to avoid the use of asbestos and of DDT, but we need to consider the lives saved by fireproofing and malaria control.
What doesn't matter is that asbestos comes out of a hole in the ground and DDT comes out of a chemical factory.

All the points made about the  use of technology are valid (caring, education funding etc), but they apply equally to nicotine or uranium. You can misuse anything- that's not a reason to use nothing, nor is it a reason to distinguish between "natural" and "artificial" even if we ever could find a definition of those words that we could all agree on.

[Karsten]

Lets get back to the original question.
"We all should encourage the use of natural and environment friendly objects at our homes and other places.  Let’s stop using products that are harmful and work towards a greener and healthier environment."

We can drop the discussion about natural. It does not matter in this context.

In that context it doesn't matter if the "product" is natural or not. We generally ought to avoid the use of asbestos and of DDT, but we need to consider the lives saved by fireproofing and malaria control.
What doesn't matter is that asbestos comes out of a hole in the ground and DDT comes out of a chemical factory.

The use of asbestos in products needs to be investigated as much as the use of human made chemicals as pesticides. However, asbestos is there and will stay here. Same with nicotine or uranium. It is good to leave it out of harms way, not make more of it, or put it into people's bodies, but we will not end its existence. With DDT  (or any other, possibly better example) it is different: We created it. It was not there before humans came up with it. Putting it out in the environment without looking what it would do was a mistake. The mistakes will be repeated if we do not pay attention to what we have done before. Humans developed fine with all the stuff that existed already while we were developing (I am excluding human-made materials). But we have acquired capabilities that require a much more careful approach than previously shown. Humans have astonishing abilities to create materials that have spectacular properties but unknown and/or surprising effects when out of control. While we need to take into consideration the effects of any material, we need to pay extra attention to materials that are new to the environment. We do not know enough and we rush into things with great excitement and may find out too late that it had been a mistake. We plan to do much better (I hope and believe) when extraterrestrial microorganisms are suspected. We don't know what could be and fear the worst. It is similar if I want to bring certain items into the USA from Canada (or the other way). I have to prove that it is harmless. If it was ever implanted in either county's soil, it most likely won't pass the border.
Industrial production has often been allowed to take the opposite approach and is helped by our definition of economic success: If harm is not proven - it is harmless. When harm is suspected, those who are harmed have to prove it. Short-term benefits for a few "friends" outweigh long-term damage for many "strangers" or those who will be effected later. Maybe that is where the problem lies: Our unwillingness to consider the effects our actions have several generations into the future and/or further than our own backyard.

[Phil1907]

Karsten - my comment to "bored" whatever meant that no scientist would ask such a childish question - re is man the greaest environmental disaster.

[112inky]

We all should encourage the use of natural and environment friendly objects at our homes and other places.  Let’s stop using products that are harmful and work towards a greener and healthier environment.

For this to take place all people should me made aware of the fact thatwe dont have a spare earth for our next generation and we are supposed to protect the existing one!!!!

[Phil1907]

"Spare earth" - as emotional and technically meaningless as the 1st post in this string. 
Grow up, children.

[Raghavendra]

ya phil you are right?

[Karsten]

Grow up, children.

And do what? What makes you think that "growing up" is going to help? What does that mean? Getting older? Wiser? How does wiser look like in your opinion? To think like you? Or does it mean stop dreaming and begin fitting in? Do what you are told to do by the elders? Be a good consumer and continue doing what we have done?

[Bored chemist]

Karsten - my comment to "bored" whatever meant that no scientist would ask such a childish question - re is man the greaest environmental disaster.

Part of the role of the scientist is to ask odd questions.
Another part is to challenge people's ideas.
Perhaps, when you have grown up you will realise that. In the meantime perhaps you could try to keep the ad hom attacks under control. I'm big enough and ugly enough not to care, but you might want to think about the damage they do to your reputation.

If you drop the word "natural" from the original post then it becomes practically a truism.
The idea that "We all should encourage the use of environment friendly objects at our homes and other places.  Let’s stop using products that are harmful and work towards a greener and healthier environment" is difficult to argue against, at least as an aspiration.

[112inky]

We all should encourage the use of natural and environment friendly objects at our homes and other places.  Let’s stop using products that are harmful and work towards a greener and healthier environment.

What do you mean by Harmful products??? Please be more specific because we need to use some unnatural products!!!!! So that people  have a clear picture...

[Chemistry4me]

No one knows. That's half of the problem! []

[Karsten]

I am afraid the original author of the post abandoned it.