Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science

by Alan Levinovitz

Illuminates the far-reaching consequences the myth of "natural" has over our lives, from misinformation about health choices to mistaken justifications of sexism, racism, and flawed economic policies.

Modern nature worship shares key elements with most religions: mythology, rituals, and laws. At the center of it all is a god: Nature, with a capital N.

Academic and journalist Alan Levinovitz's exploration of this faith takes readers deep into Peruvian jungle, on a tour of a high-tech Dutch greenhouse, wolf-watching in Yellowstone National Park, and into a controversial "natural" healing retreat. His interdisciplinary approach yields a uniquely comprehensive picture of nature worship, hidden in plain sight: in refrigerators and hospitals, in sports arenas and economic theories. Natural is the first holistic analysis of Nature's influence, along with a reckoning of the sacrifices made in its name--the lives lost, the guilt suffered, the facts distorted. Although natural has become a synonym for holy, the reality is that the so-called "appeal to nature" fallacy can be extremely dangerous. Far from being a path to earthly paradise, Nature's supposed laws have routinely stood in the way of genuine progress. "Unnatural" sexual activity is tabooed; the goodness of "natural markets" is used to rationalize the elimination of government regulations. Thankfully, there's a solution. Abandoning the equation between nature and God allows the real natural world to comes into focus: a place where perfection, purity, and simplicity are in shorter supply than we tell ourselves in stories, yet human goodness and ingenuity are empowered to take their place. Nature has immense value, and acting naturally is often a good thing. But, as Levinovitz shows, humans are unnatural animals, and they shouldn't be afraid to embrace our dual nature. Only when we stop worshipping nature can we learn to love what's natural--and stop hating ourselves in the process.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Philosophy, Health, Audiobook, Food, History

264 pages, Hardcover

First published April 7, 2020

Reviews

[David Wineberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Who would have thought the word "natural" would be so contentious? In Natural, Alan Levinovitz looks at how the word is employed in numerous contexts, from childbirth to sports, from farming to groceries and national parks, and lots more. It is a word with many meanings, used in all kinds of contexts differently. But in every case, the jury is deadlocked.

Levinovitz teaches religion, and much of the controversy he discovers can be blamed directly on religion. It has colored our views, corrupted our thought processes, and planted seemingly unremovable prejudices based on nothing. In every chapter, readers will see religion's influence, and it is never a positive force, as he acknowledges throughout. Mostly, it promulgates ignorance, despite facts available. The enormously silly and tortured arguments over what constitutes natural sexual practices (and therefore not birth control) is a classic example.

Giving birth is undergoing a vast program of returning to natural methods. This is because the medical system is so advanced that we can afford these romantic experiments. The state of relative cleanliness, the availability of help and the research available make all the difference in the world. The sad truth is that childbirth can not be made great again, because it was always a horror. Mother and child both risked their lives every time. Myths aside, natural childbirth is a mortal challenge to all mammals, and always has been. It is never a joyous experience. "Childbirth is an example of nonintelligent design," he quotes an expert. The farther we can distance ourselves from it, the better for both parties.

Similarly, ancient natural diets are not an ideal to be copied. Ancient medicines did not cure. Life was nasty, brutal and short. Raw meat and fish led to constant sickness. A return to this natural state is not in any way desirable.

On the other hand, Levinovitz points out that the modern nuclear family is an anachronism that is not a great development either. He visited a village in Peru where the old ways still operate. Everyone knows everyone. The children all play together and are looked after by everyone. There is no homelessness or starvation, as the whole community ensures everyone is taken care of. The artificial isolation of the western invention of nuclear families, single family homes and apartments is not an improvement on this system. Play dates for pets is not natural.

In food, Levinovitz shows natural can mean anything, as chemicals can come from natural sources. Organic produce can employ pesticides, and natural seeds can be bombarded to produce what the farmer wants. Again, it was never better in the past:

Penny Candies: "These, according to an 1833 article in the medical journal Lancet were routinely made with 'red oxide of lead, chromated lead, and sulphuret of mercury,' then wrapped in papers printed with poisonous dyes known to inflame the gums of children who sucked them." Also, powdered glass gave French confections "a glittering." And everyone knows the origins of wholesome, universal Coca-Cola. All natural foods.

As for religion, it allowed for the natural, but only for the wealthy. Inequality has always ruled: "Yet the long and dubious history of associating religious purity with socioeconomic class should give us pause when it comes to the latest naturalized version of the same. The conversion of class structure and of wealth into spiritual status is nothing new, and it usually involves a corruption of the values that supposedly animate a religion. When class and purity are interchangeable, a religious system cannot offer solutions to injustice. Instead, it offers an explanation: a natural hierarchy in which the highest are necessarily pure and the lowest are not." (Levinovitz tends to be wordy. In plain English, what is natural is intolerance of the poor, for whom all the rules are written. The rich buy their way out. God doesn't notice.)

By the time he gets to sports, readers will wonder why Levinovitz is even bothering. Sports is rife with faux naturalness and purity. Amateurs vs professionals, men vs women, women with naturally high testosterone levels, men with artificial limbs, transgender question marks, and the omnipresent threat of meds. Natural has been so twisted out of shape in sports it is beyond recognition - or redemption.

Then, in a surprise move at the end, Levinovitz throws in the towel. "Natural is not perfect," he says. "Therefore it is meaningless. Favoring a choice because it is natural amounts to a superstitious mistake."

So ends years of research into natural.

David Wineberg

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not a condemnation of 'natural', but a close look at what it means now & has meant historically in various contexts. When the word takes on religious connotations, we need to be especially wary. While often equated with 'good', it often isn't, especially when our ignorance of its subtleties leads us into binary judgements. It has been used to justify many horrible inequities such as banning interracial marriage, homosexuality, & women from various sports.

Levinovitz admits to initially holding the idea that the idea of 'natural = good' was complete bunk, but he has since changed his mind. While it is certainly suspect, we can't scientifically quantify much of the world, especially how the idea affects others. He makes the point very well in his discussion of faith healing.

Very well narrated, but I found the ebook helpful as well to clear up a few points. I'm really glad I read this now as my next book will be Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity. Highly recommended!

Table of Contents
Introduction
PART I Myth
CHAPTER 1 In the Beginning
CHAPTER 2 The True Vine
CHAPTER 3 States of Nature
PART II Ritual
CHAPTER 4 Hey Bear!
CHAPTER 5 Let Food Be Thy Medicine
CHAPTER 6 Deepak Chopra’s Condo
PART III Law
CHAPTER 7 The Invisible Hand
CHAPTER 8 The Rhythm
CHAPTER 9 God-Given Talent
Afterword: Salvation

[Rennie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I saw this on one of those booklists culled from famous people’s zoom meetings. It was on Dr. Fauci’s shelf. I’m so interested in this concept that I couldn’t put the library hold in fast enough. After a very strong start and first few chapters my enthusiasm really waned, though. The thread gets lost easily and it’s hard to stay invested.

The biggest takeaway I got was how connected the idea of nature is with religion, so this obsession with the natural is really another way to impose ideas rooted in religion on areas of life from food to cleaning to healthcare. The healthcare parts were the best. I loved that he broke down exactly why doctors not explicitly telling patients that some natural homeopathic garbage is in fact garbage is malpractice, while making a very sensitive case for understanding why patients look beyond the standard medical system for many reasons, including dignity and the need for hope.

Also interesting that he describes nature as a sort of “‘mercenary” that anyone can twist for their own purposes. Such a good point.

[Monica Willyard Moen · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am quite disappointed in this book. While I understand the authors premise about nature, he spent much of his time referring to religious beliefs as myth and outdated while referring to evolution as a fact. In part two of his book, he equates excepting Christ as being comparable to signing a business contract. That boggles my mind since a business contract does not change your eternal destiny and the rest of your life. To be fair, he sees all religious beliefs as myths, not just Christianity. I expected better behavior from someone who teaches religious studies at the college level. This tendency to belittle religious beliefs detracted from his points about nature and made the book unpleasant to read. The author does know how to write well and can tell a story well. However, I don’t think I will read any further books this man chooses to write.

[Navya · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved everything about this book - the main thesis, the wide range of case studies for that thesis, the writing. It hit a few particular sweet spots for me, but I would highly recommend it to everyone.

[Evan Micheals · Rating 3 out of 5]

Levinovitz investigates the concept of ’Natural’, and like a lot of simple concepts when investigated or not simple. It seemed that everyone has their own definition of natural and none was found to be contradicted when investigated. This work is challenges the naturalistic fallacy (all that is natural is good), and shows that those that claim an affinity with being natural can be easily exposed as hypocrites.

I thought this paragraph was worth the whole book. “In the evolutionary biology of child birth, ‘nature’ is a stand-in for what is sometimes referred to as the ‘environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA). Originally coined in 1969 by the psychiatrist John Bowlby, the concept is fairly straight forward. All species, including humans, are the products of evolutionary adaptation to a certain kind of environment. Remove a species from that environment and you might see biological dysfunction or ‘evolutionary mismatch’. In humans, evolutionary mismatch has been plausibly blamed for everything from rising obesity rates (we evolved in an environment where calories were not plentiful) to allergies (artificially hygienic environments are changing our microbiome and causing autoimmune disorders). (p 39). I love evolutionary psychology and find it useful when thinking about people professionally. This paragraph about the concept of EEA provides a check for thinking that is evolutionary correct. It might have been correct for the ancestors, but is less useful now.

Levinovitz writes about Deepak Chopra and Gwynneth Paltrow and the commodofication of ‘natural’, and that natural has become exclusive purview of the rich who can afford to live natural and use natural products a signal of their virtue. He points out in spite of the organic vegetables and hemp tote bags, rich individual creates more of a carbon foot print in their electric cars, than the twenty poorer people taking the bus. A lot of being natural seems to be virtue signalling.

Levinovitz show how both Capitalists and Communist ideologies use naturalistic arguments to show how the a priori held views of the Capitalist or Communist are natural, right, and correct. “Through all of this, the premise that models from nature can be neatly mapped onto economic systems remains largely unquestioned, instead of being revealed for the theological claim that it really is” (p 191). I found it interesting he that a belief in nature being good has a theological basis. It reminded me of Nietzsche’s Death of God, and my suspicious we have a deep yearning for God or the mysterious. This naturism fills this void. We are a lot more mysterious than we care to admit, and faith plays an important part in our lives. Everybody has faith in something.

Levinovitiz counsels a nuanced view of nature and what is ‘natural’. “No foundational principles about Nature’s law predetermine your position on genetically modifying babies or proper sexual habits. The default is uncertainty, ambiguity, and openness to complexity and change” (p 233). When considering ‘nature’ we need a combination of faith, science, and wisdom. Be suspicious of any claims of natural, because we do not have a good definition of what that is. Being natural means different things to different people.

[Federico Castillo · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book opens with the sharp contrast between hippie style organic meat and lab grown artificial meat. And contrary to what one would expect, the author doesn't resolve this tension. Instead the whole book is an argument that whatever you think of the free farming or the synthetic production you should avoid the world natural in the arguments.

The essence of book was a pleasant surprise. It makes you rethink one of the notions that is so taken for granted. Natural is better ,we hear all the time, but snake's poison is natural too and it can kill us. Natural is not the end all of the arguments.

For example same sex marriage. People will say that it is unnatural and other will counter with plenty of evidence showing gay penguins, and the author will say no, the whole discussion is bogus. Why is it natural/unnatural the tipping point? Of course I do believe that same sex marriage should be argued for, but also the arguments for/against should be tighter. Books like this elevate the debate.

More than the topic, I liked the author. A fair guy, putting all the cards on the table, willing to analyze sensitive issues. Cool dude, will check his books in the future.

[Derek Henderson · Rating 1 out of 5]

A timely thesis about the use/abuse of the term "natural" that quickly descends into a confusing mess. As so often in "thesis" books, what is in essence a magazine article is bulked up to book length with dreary exposition and repetition. Skim or avoid.

[Angie Boyter · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting and thought-provoking read. Each chapter looks at a different aspect of the consequences of depending on "natural" as necessarily good, and many of the examples were intriguingly unexpected, like the chapter on "natural" bodybuilders, the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports, and gender distinctions in sports and the chapter on birth control and "natural family planning".
The author is a professor of religion at James Madison University, and his strong academic interest in religion permeates the book. A certain amount of this is interesting and appropriate, but there was more than I really wanted and was to me the biggest drag on my enjoyment.

[Joe Mauch · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fantastic exploration into the fallacies and mythology surrounding all things "natural". While some chapters seem redundant and poorly defined, the central premise of the book is clearly made. The examples of natural food, natural birth, and nature itself really help highlight this theme

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is probably somewhat under 4 stars, but it gets 4 here because of Goopsters and fundagelicals, who are the top 1-star reviewers, and probably the prime 1-star raters.

Levinovitz does a great job of not only discussing the "Naturalistic fallacy," and related thoughts on the "goodness of nature," but showing how this has long — as in millennial-long — intertwined with religious belief and many other things. And, because of this, while it is a fallacy, it's not always black and white. Read details of my exactly-starred review here .

[Ekmef · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book could have been a lot better if it had started with the afterword. Central to this book is the thesis that all appeals to 'nature' or 'natural' are invalid - but eventually, it turns out, that such appeals say much more about our relationship to nature than the issue at hand. An example is the discussion about 'natural birth', where proponents speak of 'being connected to humanity' and 'a celebration of womanhood', whereas opponents mention mortality statistics. These represent two completely different classes of arguments, so it's not surprising that a dialogue between the two is often impossible. Are the natural birthers morally in the wrong? Perhaps, but Levinovitz tries to argue the point that both parties' appeals to nature are flawed (nature = is good vs nature = scary).
Another section of the book is about food and our relationship to it - eg 'natural vanilla' doesn't occur like that naturally, it needs a lot of human-induced fermentation steps. And in considering whether 'natural' is 'morally superior', do we only consider the local ecosystem or also the humans that populate it?
The sections about how money buys more 'natural' and 'pure' products but leave the status quo as is (eg expensive end point filters vs investing in clean tap water for everyone) are the strongest of the book.
Other sections, such as the section on medicine, are less strong. Maybe US doctors really are that paternalistic but the doctors described in the book do not exist at my (Dutch) workplace. The whole point of medicine is to preserve and support the agency of the patient. And the maxim by Osler (who was from the US) often rings true - the art of medicine consists of amusing the patient while nature takes its course. Going to a doctor with your sick child does not remove your agency in this matter (would hiring a plumber undermine your sense of being a homeowner?). Explaining how vaccines use your innate immunesystem is not 'reframing' but it is how they work. Modern medicine does have a story of imbalances and harmony.
So this makes me wonder about the sections on law and economics, which I know nothing about, but which might be equally superficial.
Finally, he covers a lot of sensitive issues, and there it becomes clear that Levinovitz is not a social scientist. The book might really have benefitted from a broader perspective.
Levinovitz wrote a very brave book and he is not afraid of admitting he doesn't have the answers either. However, the structure of the book doesn't really help out, it would have helped if he had made his 'framework of doubt' clearer from the start.

[Guerric Haché · Rating 5 out of 5]

This isn't a book about answering questions. It's a book about questioning ready-made answers that are rhetorically, theologically baked into our society and our narratives at every level.

It is both a plea for nuance and caution of thought, and an exploration of the real, worthy values and concerns that make people reject nuance or caution in favour of a theology of the natural.

Personally, I found most enlightening the latter, the perspectives on the ways in which secular society is failing to properly answer the human stories and concerns that are, instead, feeding a theology of nature. It's easy to criticize facile equivalencies between nature and goodness; it's somewhat more complex to point out the sheer gnarliness of the conceptual confusions involved; but most of all, it's challenging to confront the ways in which people and institutions who are trying to build a better world are failing to understand the root motivations involved, and failing to provide a compelling alternative.

Do I wish the book contained answers, suggestions, paths forward to solving concrete problems? Of course, but by the end, you realize providing pat solutions is kind of against the point. Do I wish there had been more thematic cohesion, rather than jumping across so many different fields? Maybe - but I already believe in the power and danger of narratives, so the breadth of the book, to me, ultimately reinforced the sense that this narrative of the divinity of nature is both consistently pervasive and consistently confused across a huge cross-section of society.

This book opens a very important discussion that I think could improve to our ability, as a global society, to make the most of our time here to be better neighbours to each other and better stewards of the world. More people need to read it, and think carefully about what Levinovitz is laying forth.

[M. Mangan · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a biologist with one degree in microbiology, I've always been acutely aware that our current existence is due to overcoming the plagues and infections that would have killed most people by my age. And that we eat widely diverse diets now--year 'round--due to global trade and technology. We have nearly eliminated famines killed millions and changed history. My family fled the Irish famine, changing everything for them and causing them to flee their "natural" home.

But I have also appreciated the biology on our planet--from ancient fossils right through the organism that now gives us life-saving insulin.

I am able to keep both of these ideas in my head at the same time: natural things are cool and valuable, but they are not static nor pristine, and not always better for humans. Many people, while typing on their computers in their climate-controlled homes and snacking from their refrigerator seem unable to appreciate that reality and demand "natural" shampoo and sunscreen, and farmed organic cultivated and bred crops. They avoid vaccines because they have luckily already been saved from harm by technologies that they decry.

The cohesion of the idea that buying products labeled "natural" today is a quasi-religious act of salvation is a helpful framing to understand that market and the "natural" pushers who want you to detox and purify.

There were some important twists on the concepts of naturalness that were well described that are not usually on my radar: how people make economic arguments about the natural state of trade, or the fact that some people were believed to be naturally suited for slavery and discrimination because "nature". Bitcoin carnivores were a new species to me. The repellent ideas of racism and eugenics and how their defenders saw them as natural order. "Natural" is misused in many ways.

But I think it's a hard case to make today: that it is possible to both cherish natural places and systems, while carving out a human existence on this planet with "unnatural" tools and methods. There's a story of an environmentalist who uses herbicides in order to remove invasive species and restore "natural" ones on her land. Many promoters of "natural" cannot accept things like that.

I don't know if it will convince those who need to hear it. It's a case well made, with appropriate examples. Yet seems a little like it won't reach the folks who need to hear it. They are naturally immune to ambiguity and demand purity.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

This books is a collection of essays on a wide range of topics to demonstrate two central theses: that the idea of "natural"="good" and "unnatural"="bad" is essentially a religious concept that drives much mythic, ritualistic, and legal/political behavior; and that this concept is in fact a fallacy (natural does not in fact automatically equal good and unnatural bad). While I found it interesting overall (some sections more than others), it is rather dense with sometimes difficult-to-follow arguments (with lots of citations of various historical sources), and also at times gets rather tedious/boring.

I also felt that he could have gone further than he did. While I appreciate the many ways in which he breaks down the natural=good fallacy, he does not take his arguments to their logical extreme and question the entire concept of "natural." At times, he seems to go in this direction (mentioning, for example, that there is a continuum between natural and unnatural) but at other times he seems to embrace the existence of a natural/unnatural dichotomy, arguing only that it is hard to know where the division lies, but not that it doesn't exist at all. Underlying the entire book and all of his arguments seems to be an implicit assumption that humans are somehow distinct from the rest of the natural world and that actions we take can therefore be "unnatural." This is an assumption that bears examination, and without such examination I find that many of his arguments fall short or at times come across as internally contradictory.

His religious perspective overall is one very different from my scientific one, and at times I felt I learned something (such as a better understanding of why people are drawn to "natural" medicine -- because they are looking for wholeness and control), but at other times I felt that he drew the usual lines (that science can't answer all the questions) that I do not necessarily agree with and find frustrating in books by non-scientific people. Again, another thing that is worthy of deeper examination but was instead a foundational assumption in the book.

Overall I got some value out of the book but I do not highly recommend it.

[Per Kraulis · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very well-written, thoughtful discussion about the concept of Nature and the natural. In order to argue for something, it is often a highly successful rhetorical strategy to portray it as natural. Why is that? One insight in Levinovitz' book is that "natural" is a religious term: "'Nature' is another term for God; 'natural', a synonym for holy."

Levinovitz takes a close look at several debates where the idea of what is "natural" is at the center. Some topics he investigates are: How to give birth (fun fact: the patron saint of childbirth is Raymond Nonnatus, literally "not-born", because cut from his dying mother's womb); the complications of vanilla; the conflicting views of the origin of mankind as the prototypical noble Savage or the nasty, brutish and short lives of the first humans; the contortions of the Catholic church in applying some version of "naturalness" for deciding which birth control techniques are permissible; and many others.

He is elegantly scathing when describing the "consecrated consumption" underpinning celebrity woo such as Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop line of products, and Deepak Chopra's involvement in high-priced condo schemes ("completely reinvent how we should all be living"). "Nature" priced at luxury rates exclusively for the elite.

He highlights the common conflation of "natural" with "good", but also acknowledges and is respectful of the deep need that humans have for finding good ways to live, and for confronting the challenges and questions of existence.

The one issue I have with the book is that it uses the phrase "the unnatural animal" about humans, without investigating it further. Thus it misses out on what I believe is an important point. The ability, or rather the necessity, of humans to construct cultures as a way of living underlies many conflicts where the concept of "naturalness" is used as argument. The cultural patterns that one wishes to promote gain in credibility if they are seen as "natural", rather than developed by humans. And culture is unnatural in the sense that it would not exist if humans did not exist (barring a few proto-cultural examples among certain mammals), but it is also natural since Homo sapiens would not exist without it.

Levinovits ends with a conclusion that may be viewed as unsatisfying: compromise. Nature is wonderful, inspiring, and it can teach us a lot. But human actions and inventions to overcome nature are required for a better life. "Philosophical confusion isn't a sin, it's a virtue."

[Charles Payet · Rating 5 out of 5]

I finished Alan Levinowitz's book a few days ago and wanted to write a review that does it justice. There is so much to process and appreciate though, that it's hard to know, where to start.

Having read and enjoyed "The Gluten Myth" a few years ago, I went into this book with similar expectations. I thought it would be another round of debunking pre-scientific ideas of what's "natural" and what isn't, how people get it wrong, the damage such misconceptions do, etc. Boy, was I wrong! And yet, I've never been so glad to be so wrong. Alan actually put together one of the most nuanced , thoughtful, and considered books that I've ever read, and I've read a lot!

Before the end of the 1st chapter, I DM'd Alan on Twitter, thanking him for HOW he wrote the book. He did so, in a way that appealed to both my skeptical, atheistic, science-oriented background AND my Zen Buddhist, emotional, kind of mystical leanings. I long struggled to reconcile those different aspects of my life, but eventually I gave up. I simply accepted them as a paradox. When Alan replied, "As for the paradox? That's the theme of the epilogue," I was thrilled. When I finally read the epilogue - it was scientifically and emotionally beautiful.

I've long appreciated Alan's perspective on scientific endeavors. As a Professor of Ancient Religions with an interest in understanding the intersection of humans and science, he sees both the conflicts & overlaps. After all, humans only developed and began practicing the scientific method in the last few hundred years. For most of human history, discoveries were hit or miss, often accidental, and the causes were usually attributed to some divine force or being.

Besides the elegant beauty of his writing, what I found most remarkable, was the sheer breadth and scope of Alan's analysis. He spoke of the human spirit's longing for, and almost mystical attraction to, the raw beauty of nature, interweaving it with economics, environmental preservation, colonization of the New World and the clash of civilizations, theology, and more.

While I could go on, I hope to leave any readers of this review with more questions than answers. The kind of questions that Alan addresses, without trying to prescribe definitive answers. When I finished, my personal paradox (described above) was no closer to resolution than at the beginning. And yet, it was a profoundly satisfying conclusion, in that both sides of the paradox felt heard and valued.

I've read dozens of books about science, science communication, theology, etc over the last 30 years. Not a single one was quite like this. I didn't just enjoy the book - I'm profoundly grateful to Alan, for having written it.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alright Alan, I’m giving you one of my very closely coveted 5 Star reviews. Bias over my favorite university professor aside, the rating is absolutely earned. The reasons this book was wonderful for me are twofold. Firstly is its exhaustive investigation into the concept of “naturalness”, and its willingness to be humble and honest with its findings. The last chapter beautifully wraps the book up in a way that is not sensationalized and deeply important. Naturalness I feel could not have been more meticulously explored, and the grab bag of different domains and contexts it resides in painted a thorough picture of what Natural has come to mean for people.

The second characteristic that really justifies my encomium is the way in which the approach used to uncover the meaning of natural is applicable in all other realms of investigating a concept or ideology. This is a primer on good scholarship and what it requires. The book showcases the merits of time and attention by the author, dropping the ego to learn about objects of study. The book maintains the fun of academic curiosity and the eccentric areas of research one stumbles into, its rigor notwithstanding. Easily readable and accessible to boot.

Honored to have been able to discuss this book with you Alan and excited to see its impact on the world.

[Seal]

I've always been very skeptical to things marketed as natural so I had a pretty strong feeling that this book was going to be for me, and it was! Though instead of it just being a shit fest about how everyone is brainwashed and suck for believing myths it was incredibly empathetic towards people believing in the 'natural'. Sure made me feel like an idiot for being a callous bitch. While the book certainly was on the side of nothing is actually natural, it still made a point to highlight a couple of things from the naturalists that we can take with us to the real world. For example, natural healing is garbage BUT it provides something we lack in normal healthcare, like making patients feel human instead of objects, and by putting plants in hospitals to make them feel less sterile. I also particularly enjoyed the chapters on sports and childcare, both provided perspectives I don't agree with (not from the author, but from the people he interviewed), but that nevertheless were interesting and worth my time. Really good read!

[Stronach · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was useful in that it raised many questions to topics I had never given much thought in. Written by a theologian, I wasn't expecting much but was drawn by the title and was pleasantly surprised. There are a wide array of subjects covered in this book (abortion, birth, agriculture, natural parks, economic systems, sports, medicine, apartments, just to name a few) and each one is examined with an open mind and level head.
Coming from a distinctly Western mindset, this books asks the questions: "what is nature", "is there a line between natural and unnatural", "if there is a line, is it wrong to cross it", "if it is wrong to be unnatural, why is that".

In short, it is an interesting book that encourages its reader to be conscious of our internal biases towards to idea of "natural" and to think critically about its role in our individual lives and society as a whole.

[Adam Clost · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really appreciated Levinovitz's measured take on uncertainty and the importance of being OKAY with not necessarily knowing "the best" way or option when it comes to many different choices involving beliefs around "Natural-ness." I didn't find myself drawn into the book or his writing, but I did enjoy the variety of different areas of human life that he focused on when examining the beliefs and the benefits or mistakes of beliefs in the goodness or rightness of Nature, or "Natural" dogma. I think the overall message and theme (dogmatically believing anything means giving yourself permission to justify stupid and/or terrible things), is something that needs to be heard more in our world.... and a lot of people who've been sucked into a "Naturalism echo-chamber" via social media or other biased information sources could really stand to read the book (or listen to a talk if he gives them?).

[Y.S. Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Natural argues against dogmatism when it comes what we assume to be natural and what is not concerning food, culture, and ways of life.

WHY I LOVE THE BOOK
There are reasonable arguments about how what was initially conceived as unnatural can be beneficial to humanity (for example, the advent of fertilizer). The author also put forward arguments about how actions that some might think is the natural way of things can be a cloak for bigotry and evil (eugenics, mixed-race marriages, etc).

This is a work that is not for either side of the argument but much on the side of balance, reason, and humanity.

DISLIKES
None.

WHO IS IT FOR
For anyone who loves the environment and wants to do their best to care for the earth.

[Aysha Ross · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was ok. For someone who already looks at things critically he wasn't really saying anything new to me. This is a great book for people who are in these mindsets that natural is better, because it makes you look critically at what exactly natural means and what questions we should be asking about how to make things "natural". Coming from a personal background of sustainability I found that he was basically saying that we need to look at all aspects of sustainability instead of relying on this idea of "natural". I think he could have made his point a little clearer, but it was a good book and definitely one I would recommend to people who are having these issues.

[Daniel Laughlin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Bill of goods. The cover and the book jacket in no way speak to the contents. The author can’t seem to string together a fully fleshed, coherent thought. Let alone tell a decent story. In one chapter, he begins talking about a meat-only diet (which seems inline with the book), but then quickly - as in a page later - shifts to historical economic policies.

Seems as if the author searched out evidence, however thin, to confirm his own bias. He cites pieces at an incredible rate - about 40 footnotes per chapter - making an already incoherent argument even more difficult to read.

Only book I’ve read once I’ve rediscovered my love for reading that felt like a chore to finish.

[Michael H · Rating 5 out of 5]

Levinovitz starts from a simple but important question: why do we deem “natural” to be equivalent to “good.” His chapters cover areas such as food, sports, and national parks. He’s adept at spotting the ways that the idea of the natural creeps into arguments, or silently provides a foundation to a dogma; he has less to say about what alternative foundations an argument might be built upon, but that’s not really the book’s raison d’être. The style is that of longform journalism, and Levinovitz is an engaging narrator throughout.

[Aldo J. Marchioni · Rating 4 out of 5]

The unnaturalness of “natural”

Good treatise on the history and nature of all things “natural”! The author develops the idea that natural is a continuum rather than a state of being, and that blind faith in naturalness has to be viewed in context rather than as an absolute. Natural means many things, and its goodness or lack thereof has to be examined to determine whether or not it is real, or if it represents a benefit or a liability.
Lots of aspects of the “natural” movement to think about.

[Kathy · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was so hopeful on the concept of this book - Nature - how faith in nature’s goodness leads to harmful fads, unjust laws, and flawed science, but alas... In every chapter, Levinovitz gets tangled up in a hot mess of wandering quotes by random people, random “facts” that dig a deeper hole, and random history of what is “natural” and what isn’t. A super complicated question (vanilla extract? Impossible burgers? non-hetero sex? the rhythm method? olympians? etc etc etc). The book lacks structure and is all over the place, and hence not impactful, but painful to get through.

[Tobias Leenaert · Rating 3 out of 5]

3 1/2 stars
While the main idea (we all too often think about natural things as good and many of us have replaced "god" by "nature") is of course quite interesting, I found the book lacking in structure, feeling more like a collection of essays.
Kuddo's to the other of not being black and white about nature, but recognizing that paradoxes and ambiguity are a necessary part of our relationship with and thinking about nature.

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very thoughtful dive into why the term "natural" means, for most people, "good." Considerably more dense than typical popular science, and also unusual in that the author isn't here promoting a viewpoint so much as coming to terms with the vast gray area the concept of "natural" forces on us. Not all things "natural" are "good," and not all "unnatural" things are "bad." It's a lot more complicated. A book for people who can handle uncertainty.

[Eitan Levy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting and thoughtful questions. All basic assumptions are unexamined and progressive so there's only so far he can take it. But he does raise the problem in linking morality and 'naturalness' in either direction, and points out multiple areas where it is deeply problematic. Basically a great premise that doesn't go as far in examining the question as I would have liked, but still enough to be worth the read.