Part 12: Naturalist Lifestyle, The First Three Beliefs
“Tech Jury Duty” and turning off the car radio
Read also earlier posts »Intro:About »1:Born Of Lockdown »2:Need For Naturalism »3:Equivalence Of God & Nature »4:Special Role Of Science »5:Right & Wrong Tech »6:Smartphones & Covid Vaccines »7:Irredeemable Tech »8:Tower Of Babel »9:Eden & The Fall »10:Mary Shelley: Prophet? »11:Naturalist Congregation
Because I’m outlining the new religion of Naturalism in this substack, that obviously makes me the first official Naturalist in the world. So in writing about the lifestyle of a Naturalist I can’t avoid being partly autobiographical. But because Naturalism doesn’t exist as a congregation—at least not yet—I’ll also be imagining how Naturalists might interact with each other if there were an active community of them.
First I’ll add just a quick side-note related to the need for a new ethical movement like Naturalism. Did you read about the study published in October by Boston University scientists that involved a new lab-engineered strain of Omicron coronavirus that is 80% fatal? Lovely. These technologists operate with such little opposition in the modern world, that they find it fine to publicly tout their insanely risky work.
If you feel nervous about such developments, I think there’s a good chance you are already a proto-Naturalist at heart, but just haven’t thought of a word for it yet!
Now I’ll move on to a describing what a typical Naturalist lifestyle might be. See if it fits even partly with your own practices or aspirations.
I’ll start with the summary of seven beliefs that I also listed in Part 11, and then explore how someone—such as myself or yourself—could potentially build a life and activities around these beliefs. Remember that all of this is somewhat tentative: this is a new religion and reasonably subject to revisions.
Here are the seven basic beliefs:
God is nature, and nature is sacred
technology should be “right”, and low-tech is generally better (see Parts 5 and 6 for a detailed discussion of this)
in-person gathering is important, and cannot be replaced
natural health is superior to pharma health (sort of a corollary of #2)
there is a trinity of science, ethics, and spirituality with regard to our relation to nature (see Part 4 of this substack)
freedoms of speech, religion, science, assembly, healthcare, and inquiry are essential
current religion and culture is the proper basis of any new religion and culture.
Today, I’ll explain, for the first three beliefs, how each might be reflected in the way a Naturalist lives.
1. With regard to the first belief, I’ll focus on the “inner life” of a Naturalist. A Naturalist thinks of nature as something amazing, huge, powerful, resilient, mysterious, and fascinating, but realizes that it is also sometimes sensitive. A Naturalist might view this huge power as a conscious one, or alternatively as something that is hard to label with our concept of consciousness due simply to its immensity. In either case, a Naturalist feels humble with respect to nature. A Naturalist furthermore recognizes that nature includes not only what we can sense with our five senses, but also other strata or dimensions that are beyond our normal ability to sense.
A Naturalist seeks to understand nature better, and therefore is curious about not only scientifically testable phenomena in nature, but also phenomena that can’t be readily tested, such as spiritual experiences. A Naturalist recognizes that people, society, and history are part of nature, and that we—both individually and socially—also are subject to laws of nature, whether we are aware of it or not.
2. With regard to the second belief, because of the respect for nature in Naturalism, it is understandable that Naturalists want to minimize human harm done to nature. Humans are in a special situation in which we can easily cause such harm to our surroundings. This is increasingly true as human technology advances. Naturalists will seek to use tech that is less harmful and will try to mitigate the effects of problematic tech. For example, Naturalists might generally strive to minimize use of smartphones, or go without them, due to their harms (see Part 6). Naturalists would avoid irredeemable tech that is inherently disrespectful to the wholeness of organisms or is of potentially risky consequence. Personally, I regard genetic engineering as an example of such tech (see Part 7).
Avoidance of certain kinds of tech would definitely translate into consumer choices. For example, organic food, which is certified as non-genetically engineered, could be regarded as something like a new “kosher” for Naturalists. (I’ll explore more about this later under the fourth belief, regarding natural health.) Naturalists, when cleaning the house, would of course tend to use things like baking soda and vinegar rather than chemical cleaners
Naturalists will seek to make good, impartial judgements about the rightness of any technology, based on a thorough exploration of the effects of the tech. A Naturalist will not bow to popular opinion, elite interests, or media bias when making such judgements.
Although Naturalists might fairly easily come to the conclusion that air pollution can be a harm, and that combustible fuels should therefore be used conservatively, many people reading this may have already too easily assumed that Naturalists would be very “aware” of climate change and eager to act on it. In fact, that would be underestimating this belief. In order to make an informed and impartial assessment of human effects on climate, Naturalists would have to make an extensive study into the topic, and consider all sides of it. That is not something that I personally have done yet, so I wouldn’t venture to make sweeping guesses on climate.
Naturalists are aware that there can be intense media bias on such hot-button issues as climate, and a good Naturalist would never accept ridiculously unscientific assertions like “the science is settled” or be swayed by language which denigrates opposition, such as labels of “climate-change denier.” People have seen enough of this sort of fear-based sophistry during the corona years, and there is an increasing awareness that elites repeatedly use such name-calling propaganda tactics.
In addition, proposed technological “cures” for climate change—such as Bill Gates’ reckless idea of spreading nanoparticle shields in the atmosphere—might harm nature much more extensively than our carbon emissions ever would. These sorts of questionable countermeasures should probably also be considered in any close, comprehensive look at the topic of climate change. Just as we should never have assumed that masks and vaccines would be without side-effects during a pandemic, we also shouldn’t assume that tech schemes for solving climate issues would be without harmful consequences of their own.
To add clarity to complex issues such as climate change, Naturalists could form “Tech Juries” to assess technological harms and ethics. For example, a manageable team of Naturalists, say from six to twelve members, could assemble to explore the impact of human use of fuels with respect to climate. Using the four questions I introduced in Part 5, the team could research the issue in detail and provide a report for others which assesses the rightness of the technology. This report could even be shared as part of a weekly Naturalist church service,
It’s conceivable that serving on such a Tech Jury could be considered a duty to be completed at least once in a lifetime for a Naturalist, similar to duties in other religions, like the Mission for Mormons or the Hajj for Muslims. It would work well, I think, for Tech Juries to be convened based on desire of congregants. When a group of congregants feel a desire to form such a jury, they could do so.
Whatever the findings of such a Tech Jury, Naturalists should not interpret the findings as strict truth, but as a group estimation of the ethical rightness of the tech in question. The fact is that science and knowledge always change, and new information can supersede the older. It would not be contrary to the religion that two juries could come to differing conclusions on the same topic.
3. Regarding the third belief above, in the importance of in-person gathering, Naturalists would be very skeptical of government lockdowns or distancing orders. Naturalists would know that Zoom rooms and social media are not a replacement for real gatherings. Naturalists would enjoy local gatherings and celebrations, and would seek to keep such activities alive if they are ever banned again. This might involve civil disobedience, just as southern black churches in the United States defied unjust laws in the era of civil rights protests.
Naturalists would strive to keep all their important activities in-person, including weekly church services and Tech Juries, as well as life with family and friends. Naturalists would avoid electronic recordings that are meant to be used as a replacement for actually “being there”. The basic purpose of doing so would be partly not to over-use tech, but mainly to maximize in-person community.
In personal interactions, Naturalists might develop a tradition of politeness that prioritizes social life. When together with others, Naturalists would normally avoid or minimize using phones, and would turn off any media such as TVs, radios, etc, to better focus on the other people present. For example, when driving alone, a good Naturalist might listen to a car radio or podcast, but as soon as there is a passenger in the car, the Naturalist would turn the electronics off, in order to be more sociable. In-person experience doesn’t work if people are transfixed by their devices and are not mentally present for others.
I think the commitment to in-person experience should even go beyond simple considerate social behavior. To do this, Naturalists could perform periodic “Device Fasting”. Catholics, Muslims, Mormons—and probably other religions as well—have traditions of dietary fasting of one form or another. Practitioners of Naturalism would similarly undertake periodic fasts of electronic media. This fasting could be centered on the devices themselves, such as going without a phone for one day a week, or centered on the content, such as going without media news for a certain time period. (“News fasts” are already a practice among some proto-Naturalists.) The main purpose of such Device Fasting is—again—to promote social life. Such fasting would best be done at the same time as others, not only as a reinforcement of the practice, but also as a means to enjoy the company of the likeminded. Perhaps it could be done each weekend, like a sabbath observance. Imagine what a positive effect this could have on kids and families.
The Naturalist striving for “in-personness” even has an interesting parallel in traditional religion. For example, in Christianity, God sends Jesus as a means of being in-person with humanity. Other prophets, such as Muhammad, were similarly regarded as having been sent by the supreme being. Certainly, traditional wisdom points to the importance of being among people as opposed to being distant. Even the ancient Greek word for “church”—ekklesia—was a synonym for “gathering” or “assembly”. The Christian practice of communion is centered on real, physical gathering and sharing. It’s disturbing how many churches engaged in the theological gymnastics of practicing communion via Zoom “together alone” during the pandemic.
Online meeting rooms such as Zoom are not a replacement for in-person gathering, for a number of reasons. First, Zoom rooms are inherently less democratic than in-person meetings: Zoom hosts have power to immediately mute or expel any attendee. Second, statistics suggest that Zoom meetings during the pandemic may have seriously harmed church attendance, precisely because people want the in-person experience.
At a time when profit-seeking electronic media seek to absorb us into the false and manipulated community of the metaverse, and when corporate and bureaucratic interests dishonestly conspire to distance us, the Naturalist ethics of real togetherness—of actual bread-and-butter community—is both traditional and radical at the same time. It is also completely necessary.
In the next part, I’ll continue exploring the Naturalist Lifestyle, with respect to the fourth belief.