Bioethics--Discussion

[Terywj [태리]]

So I'm taking Philosophy, Psychology, and Bioethics are part of my first semester here at university, and I want to hear some of your opinions on medical ethics, or an expansion into bioethics, or a greatexpansion into general ethics as a whole. I'm not the best at writing / English, so I will try my best but I want this to springboard discussions into what people think about this sort of stuff.

Just some key definitions to get us started.

Ethics - the study of morality using the tools and methods philosophy, or in more common words, "the study or right versus wrong using critical, clear thinking.

Applied Ethics - using moral principles or justification in an attempt to answer moral dilemmas.

Bioethics - applied ethics geared towards health care or medical fields.

Moral Skepticism - "there are no objective moral standards".

Moral Objectivism - "there are objective moral standards".

I'm sure I'm missing some, but these are just to act as a buffer to generate discussion.

Some key discussions, topics, or events may include.

Objective vs. subjective.
The abortion debate.
Ethics and religion, such as the divine command theory.
Medical consent.
Cultural relativism, are there absolute standards all cultures share?
How do you determine who is given a drug to treat an illness when there is not enough of the drug?
What, if any, is the criteria for judging a moral theory?

Again, I apologize if this is hashed, but I'm just trying to generate some discussion.

 

[Theftz22]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=297077

Here's a thread where I lay out my moral philosophy.

You'd also be interested in reading the current discussion going on about Dre's moral philosophy:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=298332&page=16

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Thanks for the help. Unfortunately I'm not a Debater so I can't post in Dre's thread, ad the other link hasn't been posted in a while, so I don't wanna get in trouble for necro'ing / bumping it or whatever.

 

[Theftz22]

That was just to lay out some material for discussion on the topic, the actual discussion on that content could happen in this thread, it doesn't really matter.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

That was just to lay out some material for discussion on the topic, the actual discussion on that content could happen in this thread, it doesn't really matter.

Oh, I'm sorry. I misinterpreted.

...yeah, I'm never gonna excel at this stuff.

 

[Ocean]

Oh, I'm sorry. I misinterpreted.

...yeah, I'm never gonna excel at this stuff.

don't get so discouraged quickly. mistakes happen, it's okay.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

I wish more non-Debaters posted here.

 

[blazedaces]

I wish more non-Debaters posted here.

Well, they either stop posting or eventually become debaters themselves...

-blazed

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Well, they either stop posting or eventually become debaters themselves...

-blazed

Well, this sucks. Oh well, I guess.

 

[blazedaces]

Well, this sucks. Oh well, I guess.

I don't understand... why does it matter what label is put on the posters in here? I mean really, has much changed about an individual the second they become a debater... besides their title and its color?

-blazed

 

[Terywj [태리]]

We're not debating about this, haha. I was hoping to discuss with pre-Debaters because they're (not insultingly) less experienced or new, since obviously you Debaters have the talent. I dunno.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

I took bioethics last semester, and it was a very thought-provoking class. One issue we talked about was Genetically Modified Organisms. What do you think about those? There's lots to talk about GMOs, they're a huge controversy nowadays.

Personally I think that they may have some benefits but we really don't know about possible long-term side-effects. I don't think it's a good idea to mess around with nature.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

I took bioethics last semester, and it was a very thought-provoking class. One issue we talked about was Genetically Modified Organisms. What do you think about those? There's lots to talk about GMOs, they're a huge controversy nowadays.

Personally I think that they may have some benefits but we really don't know about possible long-term side-effects. I don't think it's a good idea to mess around with nature.

I've only just started the course. GMO's as in per se stem cell research? While I agree that tampering with nature is "bad", I'd stand in favour of doing further experimental research in order to "perfect" this style of technology. Just by using stem cells in the brain, we can possibly one day cure Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, strokes, etc.

 

[blazedaces]

We're not debating about this, haha. I was hoping to discuss with pre-Debaters because they're (not insultingly) less experienced or new, since obviously you Debaters have the talent. I dunno.

Tery, there is no talent. Give it time, you will learn just like we all did. No one is born knowing how to debate well on an online forum.

I took bioethics last semester, and it was a very thought-provoking class. One issue we talked about was Genetically Modified Organisms. What do you think about those? There's lots to talk about GMOs, they're a huge controversy nowadays.

Personally I think that they may have some benefits but we really don't know about possible long-term side-effects. I don't think it's a good idea to mess around with nature.

Can you please define "mess around with nature" please... is breeding for the vegetables/fruits that we prefer most considered messing with nature? How about vaccinations? Or surgery? Or medication?

Try to define nature while you're at it too please.

-blazed

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Tery, there is no talent. Give it time, you will learn just like we all did. No one is born knowing how to debate well on an online forum.

I'm just trying to give credit to you Debaters. I guess you don't want it? Obviously you became Debaters because you showed your prowess in debating, derp.

 

[blazedaces]

I'm just trying to give credit to you Debaters. I guess you don't want it? Obviously you became Debaters because you showed your prowess in debating, derp.

Well, I appreciate that, but I was here long before there was a proving grounds or any criteria required in order to post in the debate hall. Another words, I didn't have to prove myself at all.

I will still argue though that the so-called "debating skill" is something learned, not innate to any one of us.

-blazed

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Well, I appreciate that, but I was here long before there was a proving grounds or any criteria required in order to post in the debate hall. Another words, I didn't have to prove myself at all.

I will still argue though that the so-called "debating skill" is something learned, not innate to any one of us.

-blazed

*Sigh* Look. I'm aware the ability to debate well is learned. That's obvious. I would like to see non-Debaters discuss this so that (a) stuff is lopsided and (b) the new people can learn from each other.

 

[blazedaces]

*Sigh* Look. I'm aware the ability to debate well is learned. That's obvious. I would like to see non-Debaters discuss this so that (a) stuff is lopsided and (b) the new people can learn from each other.

Alright. I guess that based on some of your posts you seemed to have lost hope or something, so I was trying to cheer you up and convince you otherwise...

I'll do as you suggest and let "the new people learn from each other".

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

Interesting topic. I'll just give you some pointers and perhaps some of the new posters will... post (I just approved 2 more).

1.) Try to be the ... front-man so to speak. This is your topic, so it should be in your best interest to lead the discussion. This is best accomplished by focusing your topic on a specific argument, such as "genetic research will lead to further divide among economic classes" or some such thesis. That's just an example, you may already have enough to go on with what was stated about GMO.

2.) Establish a "framework" for your argument. This enables you to better support your position, by identifying parameters, boundaries, definitions, etc. As blazed suggested, we already have several terms that you are using that could hold many meanings, so by narrowing your verbiage or at least defining it first, you help eliminate the possibility for unwanted tangents.

3.) Provide sources! This is paramount. You can well say just about anything that is opinion and state it as fact, but without sources, no one else can take it seriously.

So, in essence, I'd actually suggest editing your OP to better fit this model. Start with a thesis statement, or hypothesis... something that can be argued for and against. Establish some ground rules for the argument, clearly stating your view. And provide links to any sources that would best exemplify your ideas.

Hope this helps.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Can you please define "mess around with nature" please... is breeding for the vegetables/fruits that we prefer most considered messing with nature? How about vaccinations? Or surgery? Or medication?

Try to define nature while you're at it too please.


Sure. By messing with nature I mean modern methods of genetical engineering, or more specifically "introducing genetic material into organisms to alter, create and affect changes in living plants and animals." (from http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/genetically-modified-foods.html)


I don't think we have much to gain by doing these processes. We are altering foods in ways we may not fully understand. I don't think we can create a more optimal genetic code (via this kind of genetic engineering) then what already exists. In other words I don't think we can make a "better" tomato. I'll write more later, right now I'm too tired.

 

[blazedaces]

I don't think we have much to gain by doing these processes. We are altering foods in ways we may not fully understand. I don't think we can create a more optimal genetic code (via this kind of genetic engineering) then what already exists. In other words I don't think we can make a "better" tomato. I'll write more later, right now I'm too tired.

And you know this because of your lifetime commitment to understanding the genetic structure of the tomato? I mean, define "better"...

My issue with statements like these are that they are generalized to every case. The world is not black and white. A human being is not a tomato, it is a lot more complex. Also, if we're talking about making a seedless watermelon, that's not the same thing as combining the nutritional benefits of tomatoes and cucumbers or something like that.

You're generalizing that we can't use genetic manipulation for ANYTHING that involves genetic manipulation... because something in your "gut" tells you it's wrong... What if we knew that making a genetic alteration to a virus would stop that virus from wiping out the entire human race... would it then be ok?

You're making a very generalized statement without leaving room to draw a line anywhere, and it just doesn't sound realistic to me.

-blazed

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I took bioethics last semester, and it was a very thought-provoking class. One issue we talked about was Genetically Modified Organisms. What do you think about those? There's lots to talk about GMOs, they're a huge controversy nowadays.

Personally I think that they may have some benefits but we really don't know about possible long-term side-effects. I don't think it's a good idea to mess around with nature.

It's interesting to note that we've been genetically modifying organisms for several thousand years. Artificial selection and whatnot. But I suppose that's not the question when talking about GMOs, is it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzTECVk8tVU

Relevant. Very relevant.

But to be fair, what if we can predict the long-term side-effects? What if we can say exactly what transgene A does to genome B? Because we're quickly approaching that point, and after that it'll simply be questions of screwing with food chains, which are also relatively predictable.

I don't think we have much to gain by doing these processes. We are altering foods in ways we may not fully understand. I don't think we can create a more optimal genetic code (via this kind of genetic engineering) then what already exists. In other words I don't think we can make a "better" tomato. I'll write more later, right now I'm too tired.

Hmm... Yes, and inherent insecticides in the plants, drought-resistance, higher yields, and the like are all non-issues? While much of Africa hungers? You are completely overlooking the humanitarian benefits that GMOs can offer simply due to their higher stability, better yields, and higher resistance to the usual plant issues.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

I admit that my earlier arguement was indeed over-generalized. Still getting the hang of this whole "debating" thing.

But now I will point out some more specific problems with GMOs. I want to start with the health risks involved. All those things mentioned (inherent insecticides in the plants, drought-resistance, higher yields) sound great, but they come at the price of general health risks. Lemme first point out that about 90% of the studies on the safety of GMOs are funded by biotech industries such as Monsanto; needless to say, this is a huge conflict of interest. Most independant studies have indeed shown that GMO consumption has adverse effects on the body. I will list two examples.

From a study featured in a Huffington Post article: "Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html


Potatos modified to produce their own incecticide were fed to rats and shown to encourage precancerous cell growth in the digestive tract, inhibited development of their brains, livers, and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, enlarged pancreases and intestines, and immune system damage. The results of this study can be found in the Lancet, I believe. This is one of the most comprehensive studies in terms of the health risks of GMOs. http://www.seedsofdeception.com/documentFiles/119.pdf

As you see these are two of many more studies that call into question the official stance that GMOs are nutritionally no different than their unmodified counterparts and, at the very least, suggest that there may be possible health risks involved with GMOs. I think these risks outweigh any benefits of GMOs. This probably will strike you as an over generaliztion, but the truth is that when we alter genetic codes of any organism via gene splicing or other related methods we are not yet able to fathom the full array of consequences that it can have. Because of this it's rash and careless to allow for such widespread use of GMOs around the world. In America GMO foods are not even required to be labeled as such. If you buy food from your local supermarket their is a very good chance that you will be having GMO for dinner and not even know it. Why is this the case when we have the right to know what we are eating?

 

[Terywj [태리]]

I kinda wanna get into some stem cell research discussion. Suntan Luigi, what are your opinions on that? Seeing as you made a solid case on genetically modified vegetables (or technically animals) what about stem cells?

 

[The Real Gamer]

Tery I assume you're questioning his opinions on human embryonic stem cell research in particular, right? From my basic understanding most scientists work with either embryonic stem cells or the less controversial yet less efficient non-embryonic, adult stem cells.

Source

"Somatic (adult) stem cells—A relatively rare undifferentiated cell found in many organs and differentiated tissues with a limited capacity for both self renewal (in the laboratory) and differentiation. Such cells vary in their differentiation capacity, but it is usually limited to cell types in the organ of origin. This is an active area of investigation."

From my own personal experience, most people's opinions on human embryonic stem cell research come down to whether or not they believe that life begins at conception (which is asserted in religious doctrines). However I should note that I grew up in a highly conservative area so perhaps the debate isn't always quite that clear cut.

I'm not making a stance on whether I support it or not but just trying to clear some things up and potentially open up some more discussion. I find the topic interesting and I'd love to hear some intelligent opinions on human embryonic stem cell research that don't include "I don't support it because the Bible says it's a sin!!!"

 

[ciaza]

Both of you should take a stance >.>

We're not here so much for intelligent discussion, this isn't like the MENSA of SWF or something.

Get debating!

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Tery I assume you're questioning his opinions on human embryonic stem cell research in particular, right? From my basic understanding most scientists work with either embryonic stem cells or the less controversial yet less efficient non-embryonic, adult stem cells.

Source


From my own personal experience, most people's opinions on human embryonic stem cell research come down to whether or not they believe that life begins at conception (which is asserted in religious doctrines). However I should note that I grew up in a highly conservative area so perhaps the debate isn't always quite that clear cut.

I'm not making a stance on whether I support it or not but just trying to clear some things up and potentially open up some more discussion. I find the topic interesting and I'd love to hear some intelligent opinions on human embryonic stem cell research that don't include "I don't support it because the Bible says it's a sin!!!"

Of course! What you said is exactly the type of stem cell research discussion I'm asking of. The idea of this subject of research fascinates me, as I'm currently learning more about this in class, and discussions should definitely not include "Stem cell research is immoral because you're taking the cells from a living being.", especially not when we just might be able to perfect adult stem cells located in say bone marrow.

 

[The Real Gamer]

Both of you should take a stance >.>

We're not here so much for intelligent discussion, this isn't like the MENSA of SWF or something.

Get debating!

Rawr. According to the OP and title this is a discussion thread but I guess you're right.

I'm definitely a supporter of human embryonic stem cell research. My simple opinion is that there is nothing wrong with tampering with an embryo that is so early in development. Of course this is as long as the research in the long run is used for the betterment of mankind.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

I guess I'll go play Devil's Advocate once I get back from dinner.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I guess I'll go play Devil's Advocate once I get back from dinner.

The trick is, don't say you're going to post, just post. But do tell everyone that you're playing Devil's Advocate. It helps us better gauge your abilities. Especially considering that playing DA is harder than not.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

The trick is, don't say you're going to post, just post. But do tell everyone that you're playing Devil's Advocate. It helps us better gauge your abilities. Especially considering that playing DA is harder than not.

I was literally going to post when I got back. But my campus Internet is unreliable so I went to sleep.

TRG, what types of stem cells are there, and do you support one more than the other? Or just both. Tweaking stuff according to your response.

 

[The Real Gamer]

TRG, what types of stem cells are there, and do you support one more than the other? Or just both. Tweaking stuff according to your response.

There are two types of stem cells: The pluripotent, embryonic stem cells and the multipotent, somatic (adult) stem cells.

Source

pluripotency (from the Latin "plurimus" or "very many" and "potentia" or "powered") refers to a stem cell that has the potential to differentiate into any of the three germ layers: endoderm (interior stomach lining, gastrointestinal tract, the lungs), mesoderm (muscle, bone, blood, urogenital), or ectoderm (epidermal tissues and nervous system). Pluripotent stem cells can give rise to any fetal or adult cell type.

Multipotent progenitor cells have the potential to give rise to cells from multiple, but a limited number of lineages. An example of a multipotent stem cell is a hematopoietic cell — a blood stem cell that can develop into several types of blood cells, but cannot develop into brain cells or other types of cells.

Most controversy concerning stem cell research is specifically involved with embryonic stem cells if my knowledge is correct, but I do support both equally. However, since ESCs (can we use abbreviations?) have shown a greater amount of potential, I prefer ESC research over SSC research if that makes sense...

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Hmm, stem cells. I don't really feel as strongly about the stem cell issue as I do with GMOs. Before 2007 the methods used to obtain stem cells were the main source of controversy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know scientists perviously could only get stem cells from aborted fetuses. I'm against this but, however, this is irrelevant now because since 2007 "researchers have moved on to more ethical study methods, such as Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPS). iPS are artificially derived from a non-pluripotent cell, such as adult somatic cells." (http://www.experiment-resources.com/stem-cell-pros-and-cons.html#ixzz1YARPAQaF) Today the question is more about how the knowledge derived from this research could be used.

I think that as long as the research is ethically conducted then there is no problem. Stem cell research could have many potential benefits for humanity.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

I can't quite find a source for this, but scientists are actually able to remove one of the cells from the cleavage stage, extracting one of the fertilized egg totipotent stem cells from the 8-cell stage (after two divisions), leaving the 7-cell stage perfectly normal (as the cells are just going to continue multiplying until any of the various embryonic stem cells from the blastocysy / ICM (inner cell mass). Culturing the extracted cell should not bear as much controversy in my opinion, as a group of 8 cells shouldn't really be considered a human being.

 

[Battlecow]

Stuff about GMO's

Look if anyone could prove that a certain GMO was harmful, or even prove that it might be, it'd be gone in seconds flat. This "we don't KNOW what will happen" business smacks of paranoia to me. Do you know why the US doesn't require the labeling of GMO's? Because no one cares enough to make them. Do you know why no one cares? Because the only people with the leisure to worry that their cheaper foods MIGHT be somehow harmful in unforeseen and incomprehensible ways are the type of people who probably have the money to eat organic anyways. Cheap food is important.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Listen, Battlecow, don't bring America into every single debate.

It just sounds ignorant when you're bragging about how the USA doesn't label GMO's, et cetera.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Here is my reply. (stupid ten character limit)

Look if anyone could prove that a certain GMO was harmful, or even prove that it might be, it'd be gone in seconds flat.

The studies I showed indeed prove that GMOs may carry harmful effects on the health. However, if this is the case then why they GMOs so widespread and growing ever more popular? Let's examine why.

First of all, you have to take into account the vast sums of money that are to be made by biotech firms and the industries that distribute GMOs. We're talking billions of dollars here. Monsanto, the multinational biotech giant, most readily springs to mind. These companies are in all likelihood not going to let go of this source of revenue so easily. You can read about some of their profits here if you want: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=atEjqc3w7xck

Of course big companies are going to take hefty measures to protect their source of income, this is a given. It doesn't matter how harmful or harmless their products are. What matters first is profits. Just think of Big Tobacco and how they deliberately hid evidence, (from their own studies no less!) that showed the addictive proprieties of nicotine, for decades.

You must recall that the vast majority of studied regarding GMO safety are industry funded. Any independent study or researcher that reasonably puts into question the safety of GMOs will be largely dismissed as insignificant and in extreme cases they will even be censored. As a matter of fact this is exactly what happened to Arpad Pusztai, the lead researcher of the GM potato study. After two days he was "released from his job after 35 years and silenced with threats of a lawsuit, the 20-member research team was disbanded, and the project terminated." Go and check it out for yourself, it's rather extraordinary. (http://www.seedsofdeception.com/documentFiles/119.pdf)

This is one of the ways that these companies who profit from GMO distribution protect those profits. There are other ways of course but there is no need to go into detail.


The bottom line is this: When it comes to giant corporations profits come first, then the health of the people come later.

This "we don't KNOW what will happen" business smacks of paranoia to me.

We have many independent studies that indeed show that GMOs can have harmful health effects. With this in mind is it not better to, at the very least, err on the side of caution? It's very careless to allow for such widespread use of GMOs given that the results of these independently funded studies exist.

Do you know why the US doesn't require the labeling of GMO's? Because no one cares enough to make them. (To make labels I assume?) Do you know why no one cares? Because the only people with the leisure to worry that their cheaper foods MIGHT be somehow harmful in unforeseen and incomprehensible ways are the type of people who probably have the money to eat organic anyways. Cheap food is important.

This is a big generalization. There are plenty of people irrespective of economic backgrounds who rightfully are concerned about the quality of the food they are eating. Just a simple Google search will show you how many petitions there are demanding the labeling of GMOs in America. The bottom line is that people deserve to know if they are eating GMO.

 

[Battlecow]

Listen, Battlecow, don't bring America into every single debate.

It just sounds ignorant when you're bragging about how the USA doesn't label GMO's, et cetera.

It's not ignorant. See? I can do it too. Or we could, y'know, debate.

And he brought up the US first; I was responding to his point about how the US didn't label GMO's.

Here is my reply. (stupid ten character limit)

Hey, can you put that outside of my post so that I can quote it? Otherwise I have to do a ****load of work to copy-paste every paragraph, put it in quotes, then respond. Thanks, dude.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

No problem. Here it is.

Look if anyone could prove that a certain GMO was harmful, or even prove that it might be, it'd be gone in seconds flat.

The studies I showed indeed prove that GMOs may carry harmful effects on the health. However, if this is the case then why they GMOs so widespread and growing ever more popular? Let's examine why.

First of all, you have to take into account the vast sums of money that are to be made by biotech firms and the industries that distribute GMOs. We're talking billions of dollars here. Monsanto, the multinational biotech giant, most readily springs to mind. These companies are in all likelihood not going to let go of this source of revenue so easily. You can read about some of their profits here if you want: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=atEjqc3w7xck

Of course big companies are going to take hefty measures to protect their source of income, this is a given. It doesn't matter how harmful or harmless their products are. What matters first is profits. Just think of Big Tobacco and how they deliberately hid evidence, (from their own studies no less!) that showed the addictive proprieties of nicotine, for decades.

You must recall that the vast majority of studied regarding GMO safety are industry funded. Any independent study or researcher that reasonably puts into question the safety of GMOs will be largely dismissed as insignificant and in extreme cases they will even be censored. As a matter of fact this is exactly what happened to Arpad Pusztai, the lead researcher of the GM potato study. After two days he was "released from his job after 35 years and silenced with threats of a lawsuit, the 20-member research team was disbanded, and the project terminated." Go and check it out for yourself, it's rather extraordinary. (http://www.seedsofdeception.com/documentFiles/119.pdf)

This is one of the ways that these companies who profit from GMO distribution protect those profits. There are other ways of course but there is no need to go into detail.


The bottom line is this: When it comes to giant corporations profits come first, then the health of the people come later.

This "we don't KNOW what will happen" business smacks of paranoia to me.

We have many independent studies that indeed show that GMOs can have harmful health effects. With this in mind is it not better to, at the very least, err on the side of caution? It's very careless to allow for such widespread use of GMOs given that the results of these independently funded studies exist.

Do you know why the US doesn't require the labeling of GMO's? Because no one cares enough to make them. (To make labels I assume?) Do you know why no one cares? Because the only people with the leisure to worry that their cheaper foods MIGHT be somehow harmful in unforeseen and incomprehensible ways are the type of people who probably have the money to eat organic anyways. Cheap food is important.

This is a big generalization. There are plenty of people irrespective of economic backgrounds who rightfully are concerned about the quality of the food they are eating. Just a simple Google search will show you how many petitions there are demanding the labeling of GMOs in America. The bottom line is that people deserve to know if they are eating GMO.

 

[GoldShadow]

I know this is going back to an earlier post, but:

Personally I think that they may have some benefits but we really don't know about possible long-term side-effects. I don't think it's a good idea to mess around with nature.

How do you define "nature" or "natural"? Does "natural" mean the norm? Does it mean whatever is in an organism's genome? Does it have to do with the environment in which an organism is raised?