one thing you guys didn't mention -- many people's lives around the world have been highly improved by adopting "non-natural" technology. Try telling a farmer in Swaziland circa 1975 that he should stick with "organic" food production because the capital-intensive mass production techniques aren't natural. No one in that village is going to complain. They're actually going to eat because the farmer decides to forgo "the natural"! The cult of the natural, as you guys called it, is a position for privileged first-worlders. The rest of the world should be so lucky to have a real choice.nnOne other observation. You guys were talking about differences in running in ancient human history versus today. One big difference: today, must people run on paved roads. That's got to take its toll on shins/hips more so than back in the day when we all ran in the African savanna! nnIn all, you guys rock. Loved the show and the food for thought. Peace.

I think more salient point is that framing the debate as "natural" vs. "technological", or across any other divide like that, just makes it really really difficult to rationally evaluate any approach to a particular problem, much less construct an ideal one. nThere are a lot of things the rich countries are doing agriculturally that they should not be doing, but basing criticism on whether or not it's "natural" doesn't encourage an understanding of the issues so much as it necessitates mutual vilification of conflicting opinions. nI also find it greatly exacerbated by a consumerist culture, because there are a lot of businesses, ad agencies, etc. that have a lot of incentive to nominally take a side, but very little reason to sincerely follow through on those ideals. Those that do sincerely take on a cause are largely indistinguishable, from a consumer's perspective, from those that just put on a show.