Part 20: Body Modification
What is right and wrong when it comes to changing our physical nature?
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 »12:First Three Beliefs »13:Natural Health »14:Trinity & Six Freedoms »15:Importance of Continuity »16:Chicken Little »17:New Fundamentalism »18:Obstacles to Naturalism »19:Mr. Bean, Proto-Naturalist
When I was in high school in the 1980s, a female classmate of mine was absent for a few days. She returned with a smaller and quite unremarkable nose. She had gotten a “nose job” out of concern for the appearance of the somewhat large, hooked nose that she had been born with, and which likely ran in her family. Privately, I thought that she actually didn’t look as good with her new nose. Her natural nose had been distinctive, something that made her more noticeable in a not unattractive way. Her family had likely spent a small fortune for absolutely no benefit. I felt that she had done herself wrong.
I guess even back then I was a Naturalist at heart. Naturalism values what nature has given us, and seeks to live well with those nature-given (a.k.a. God-given) parameters. So when it comes toward intentionally changing a body—for whatever purpose—Naturalists might think longer about the ethics of it, at least longer than a typical high-school girl would. That’s especially appropriate in recent years, since body modification for the sake of transgenderism has become more in demand. Perhaps it’s not a coincidence that “gender affirming surgery”—like nose jobs—is also more common among younger females. Could it be that the somewhat vain nose dysphoria of the 1980s has morphed recklessly into the gender dysphoria of the 2020s?
Most people have at least some feeling of ethics with regard to body modifications, but ethical standards vary widely by household and by country. For example, in Japan tattoos are taboo, associated with gangsters and never displayed in public. However, among Maori people, prominent facial tattoos are a commonplace tradition, and help show kinship and belonging.
Of course there is a broad array of body modifications, ranging from minimal to fairly serious. Below are some examples. Perhaps you can think of others.
1. bodybuilding done through focused exercise
2. simple body art, like pierced ears, a small tattoo, or hair coloring
3. piercing of multiple other body parts (lips, nose, nipples, etc.) or extensive tattooing
4. simple corrective surgery with the aim of having a normal social presence, such as for a large facial wart, a cleft palate, or a tongue-tie
5. intentional modification of children’s bodies for traditional cultural purposes (such as the manipulation of head-shape or foot-size by using bindings, or neck-length by using rings)
6. botox treatment for cosmetic purposes
7. elective cosmetic surgery for purposes of modifying appearance in an attempt to enhance beauty (such as nose jobs, liposuction, or facelifts)
8. breast implants
9. vaccination in general, for the purpose of modifying one’s immune system in an attempt to enhance health
10. “gene therapies” including mRNA vaccines
11. birth control surgery (such as tube-ties or hysterectomies for females or vasectomy for males) for people who have had children and don’t want any more.
12. birth control surgery as in number 11 above, but for people who have never had children and are still at a prime child-bearing age.
13. occupational castration of males (such as traditionally for eunuchs and some choir singers)
14. gender-reassignment surgery: “top surgery” and “bottom surgery”
15. intentional maiming of one’s own body for purposes of “transabilism” (yes, it’s really a thing)
16. intentional maiming of the bodies of others, generally as a punishment, which could range from cutting off a finger or hand, or even disabling or dismembering an arm or leg.
Certainly some of these body modifications are less ethical than others. I’d like to explore the possibility of some simple ethical guidelines on these, using Naturalism. I’ll look at them through the lens of some of the basic beliefs of Naturalism (see the full list in Part 12). Hopefully, these will help determine what body modifications are fine, questionable, or just bad.
First, I’d like to consider the first belief, that “nature is sacred”. Our own bodies are what nature has given us, so any modification of them could be considered disrespectful to nature. Some Naturalists may personally avoid all of the modifications in the above list, but any Naturalist could appreciate that there is a continuum involved. Some of the list above are rather minor modifications that don’t change anything essential about our bodies. Simple tattoos and piercings are furthermore largely reversible. Others of these modifications are major and permanent, changing essential parts of our bodies. These major, non-reversible types (most obviously numbers 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 above) would therefore likely be considered unethical by any Naturalist.
Intentional maiming of oneself or others (numbers 15 and 16) results in a loss of major natural abilities, even the ability to walk, see, or hear. Gender reassignment surgery (number 14) attempts—in a rather clumsy and expensive way—to mimic a change of genders, natural-born gender being one of the most essential universals of life on earth, both plant and animal. In the process, such surgery renders the person infertile, destroying his/her natural procreative ability. Occupational castration of males (number 13, which hopefully is no longer practiced anywhere) also is wrong because of the permanent sterilization and likely the effect on natural hormones. Sterilization surgery of either sex before they have a chance to procreate (number 12) is also similarly unethical because it eliminates this natural ability, in a way that is very likely irreversible.
Numbers 12 through 16 are not necessarily the only modifications that are disrespectful to nature, but they are the most obviously so, because they all eliminate essential motor or procreative abilities of the person.
It’s also possible to view many of these 16 modifications through the lens of the second belief of Naturalism, that “technology should be ‘right’, and low-tech is generally better.” Consider number 11, birth control surgery for people who have already had kids. On the one hand, this is ethically less questionable than the birth control surgery in number 12. That’s because in number 11, the people have already exercised their natural ability of procreation, so it is perhaps “less unnatural” to seek such surgery. However, most Naturalists would likely not give this modification a “pass” because there are a number of other lower-tech methods for birth control that involve no surgery and are easily reversible. Natural or lower-tech methods—like the rhythm method or condoms—would clearly be preferable to a Naturalist who wants to prevent births.
Look at vaccination and gene therapy modifications (numbers 9 and 10 in the list above) also with an eye toward lower-tech alternatives. There are lower-tech or natural alternative treatments for likely any vaccinable illness (for example, see Part 13 for a discussion of a likely Naturalist approach toward covid-19). Furthermore, the risks from the vaccines themselves are likely often much greater than the risks from the diseases they claim to prevent. Vaccines disrupt natural inborn immune abilities, and much evidence suggests that they can make a person more vulnerable to other illness. It’s possible that this disruption is reversible over a period of years, but reversal could only occur for individuals who consciously leave the endless hamster-wheel of repeated jabs and boosters that are sold to prevent whatever pandemic-du-jour.
As for gene therapies, these modifications of our bodies alter what made us at the point of conception, our nature-given DNA uniqueness. We give up our natural essence in exchange for being modified by snippets of patented traits, literally ceding, in part, the ownership of our own body to pharma corporations. How could we possibly trust this manipulation of our own genetics? How could we not expect there to be unintended consequences? It’s no surprise that after the initial media cheerleading of 2017 we’ve heard almost nothing in the news about gene-therapy treatments, other than the obviously ineffective and often harmful Pfizer and Moderna covid vaccines. A Naturalist would very likely seek any lower-tech alternatives to gene-therapy treatments.
Other modications can also be easily replaced by lower-tech and non-permanent alternatives. Breast implants (number 8) are prone to complications (search “breast implant illness” for example). For the Naturalist woman who desires a fuller figure, a simple padded bra might suffice in public. In private, an understanding romantic partner is preferable, especially for women who’ve undergone mastectomies. Shouldn’t every such partner be understanding, anyway? Sometimes a “low-tech” solution means seeking a social or interpersonal solution.
Elective cosmetic surgery and botox treatments (numbers 7 and 6 above) are also examples of modifications that have lower-tech—and generally much less risky—alternatives. There are herbal facial treatments that can remove wrinkles, but more importantly there are different ways to think about yourself. The girl at my high school who got the nose job could have instead tried to appreciate her natural nose’s distinctiveness. She could have proudly carried it as a sign of belonging to a lineage of people who obviously didn’t consider it defective. She could have considered that there may be some advantages to having her original nose, advantages that she might lose if she changed it. She might also have thought of the potential risks involved: will it affect the sinuses, the sense of smell, etc? You can’t undo such changes. It reminds me of a passage in the Tao Te Ching, chapter 46:
There is no disaster greater than not being content;
There is no misfortune greater than being covetous.
Hence, in being content, one will always have enough. (D.C. Lau translation)
Of course, my nose-job classmate probably had very little good encouragement from her family and friends to keep her nice, natural nose. It takes a general culture of appreciating our natural-born selves at whatever age we are. Absent this culture, it’s easy to fall into coveting that which you don’t have, such as “perfect” noses, smooth young skin, or the gender you weren’t born into. That’s especially when there is so much propaganda and advertisement geared toward wanting what we don’t have. Naturalism aims to build the culture that can resist this.
There are a handful of remaining body modifications left on my list which I haven’t addressed yet. Number 5 is the intentional cultural modification of children’s bodies, such as skull deformation, or the much better documented foot-binding of girls in traditional China. Although these practices are considered abhorrent today, they were the norms in the social environments in which they were practiced, and to some extent must be viewed in a dispassionate anthropological and historical light. And although foot-binding was clearly done as a means of inhibiting a girl’s natural ability to run or walk fast—and is therefore unethical by Naturalist standards—it is not known whether skull deformation resulted in any impairment of any human ability. In modern times, however, it would obviously be unethical for any parent to try this on their child. There could be physical or mental impairments as a result, and the child would certainly face social difficulties, due to the unusual appearance of its head.
Unusual appearance also relates to corrective surgery (number 4). There is a long tradition of such correction: successful cleft-palate surgery has even been documented as far back as the year 390BC. Like cosmetic surgery, corrective surgery often aims at improving appearance, but there is a clear ethical difference between the two. Corrective surgery aims to provide an appearance that is normal for society, with the understanding that humans are social animals, and that physical traits that deviate significantly from normal can socially impair an individual. This relates to the seventh belief, “current religion and culture is the proper basis of any new religion and culture.” A corollary of this belief is that humans are not only individuals but also members of a larger social organism, which is also part of nature (see explanation in Part 15). In other words, our survival depends on the smooth functioning of individuals in a society. From a Naturalist perspective, corrective surgery could be seen as not seeking to have power over nature (as does cosmetic surgery) but instead seeking to ensure natural social abilities in an individual who is in danger of losing them. If risks are few from such corrective surgeries, many Naturalists might ethically opt for them.
Moving upwards on my list, the next two body modifications relate to body-art “surface” modifications which are generally less ethically questionable. Number 3 on the above list includes cases of extensive tattoos or piercings, and number 2 includes modest amounts of either as well as simple hair coloring. I’ve separated the two because there are some possible ethical differences between doing something in a moderate amount as opposed to a possible excess. For example, extensive piercings, especially in less common areas of the body, may be riskier in terms of infection or other injury. Would it be wise to do that to yourself or encourage it in others? Tattoos often cause later regret, and removal is expensive and difficult. Furthermore, there are known health risks from needle-borne disease as well as from some pigments that have been used in tattoos. Although I’m sure these dangers would be minimized with responsible tattoo artists, people with tattoos still also have to use sunscreen to maintain the color of tattoos, which typically involves the use of non-natural chemicals. Chemicals are also a concern with hair coloring. In short, the amount or frequency of body-art modifications may affect the degree of the various health risks from them. To put your health in significant danger for the sake of these modifications would not be ethical, but I think it’s likely that most Naturalists would view these risks as minimal, especially if the body art is not extensive.
One caveat to any body art is whether it was done as a matter of free will. Generally in the developed world, if any such modifications are ever performed against someone’s will, the modification is clearly unethical, a violation of bodily autonomy (which relates to the Naturalist belief in “freedom of healthcare”, see Part 14). However, in traditional cultures or perhaps even some pockets of the developed world, piercings or tattoos may in fact be a de rigueur practice, even related to rite-of-passage ceremonies. Such practices should be respected because they help an individual fit into their society, in a manner parallel to that of corrective surgery. For the individuals in such a society, receiving the body art is not a question of free will, but just a question of being accepted as a full member of that society. If physical or social abilities are not impaired, then there is not an ethical concern.
The final modification I’ve listed, number 1, is bodybuilding achieved through focused exercise. Certainly individuals can attain very noticeable body changes from such efforts. Exercise is usually a health benefit, if not done in excess or with the aid of steroids or other harmful supplements. Whenever bodybuilding is done with true health in mind, there is nothing objectionable about it for a Naturalist. I’ve known bodybuilders that take health extremely seriously, who literally embody the traditional religious imperative to treat your “body as a temple”. On the other hand, I’ve known others who used steroids. The danger is if a bodybuilder becomes too engaged in competition or personal obsession with form, and therefore decides to put other goals above the goal of health. That’s certainly a danger in every sport.
In summary, I’ve considered all the 16 body modifications that I listed, and I think that most of them, numbers 5 through 16, would be either egregiously wrong or very questionable for Naturalists. That’s not to say that a Naturalist would never do any of them, because each person should reflect and weigh alternatives before making decisions. Numbers 1 through 4 would, as I see it, be often or usually acceptable among Naturalists, if done with a clear desire to maintain health.
In my view, there is recently a strong usefulness for Naturalist ethics when considering body modifications. By applying these ethics, we can see the connections between such recent phenomena as covid vaccines and transgender surgery. We can see that they are both disrespectful to nature because they both steal away our natural physical abilities, change our essential nature, and incur risks and costs down the line. We can use nature-based ethics as a means to build a new, stronger social movement that builds acceptance for our own natural goodness, and makes us more resistant to advertisement and propaganda. There are currently no institutions that are consciously doing this, but it needs to be done.