Newsletter from Jay Wilcox - April 2019: On What's "Natural" vs. "Good"

Good morning/afternoon/evening!

I hope you are well and enjoying Spring. As I say during literally every time of year, I really think this is my favorite time of year. I even love the insects--little buzzing reminders of the world coming back to life. I've been thinking about keeping an apiary someday, which should totally and completely counteract centuries of human-on-planet violence.

Despite all this crunchy talk, however, I don't seek out organic food. I like my beans and bread affordable. Sure, I'll eat organic, if it's available, but I don't usually find it better-tasting than the poisonous stuff.

I'm not really crunchy. I'm crunch-ish, and as I age, I abide less and less by the hand-wringing of healthcare bloggers. I won't smoke--but that's about all they're getting out of me. I eat blueberries for their taste, not because they're antioxidants, and every day I take a combination of synthetic vitamins. A common logical fallacy, often referred to as the "appeal to nature," insists that something can be considered valid or good solely by being "natural." But consider: if you eat a seedless grape, no matter how "Organic" its label claims it is, you are eating a GMO. Any sort of breeding or cultivation makes a plant a GMO--and I figure, since I'm already eating GMOs, I may as well embrace technology that allows more people to eat affordably.

If something is "natural," does that inherently make it "good?"

While we're talking about food, consider the tragedy of the commons. Unbridled consumption--of petroleum and wheat and dairy and Fruit Roll-ups--is totally natural. Eat until you're full, right? Shouldn't you be able to live however and wherever you want? As the planet's pollinators die off, we're locked in this weird prisoner's dilemma, terrified of taking the less-than-immediately-profitable course and driving to the store because our communities were built just beyond walking distance. This dilemma is one-hundred percent organic.

Without outside regulation, it's completely natural for a business-owner to gobble up all resources and eliminate their competition. And really, why should anyone be required to put a cap on their own income/success/growth?

Something being organic shouldn't be enough to make us want to buy it.

I argue for a system of capitalism with regulation. Challenge monopolies. Protect labor unions. Taking care of society's most vulnerable is totally unnatural and increasingly necessary, and I wish everyone would read or reread Rousseau's "The Social Contract."

On another note, a recent health headline tried telling me that drinking hot tea (why tea? why not just hot drinks, in general?) correlates with an almost-100% rise in one's risk of esophageal cancer. I brew my Earl Grey inside a fusion reactor. Should I be concerned?

Infinite Regards,

Jay

P.S. - My novel Music for Parasites has entered another round of intensive editing. I would compare the editing process to a smith forging a sword: fold it over and hit it again, fold it over and hit it again... Thank you for your support. I will keep you updated.