system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Is everything natural?

I often hear people argue that some behaviour or social arrangement is natural as opposed to something that they wish to discredit. Obviously sometimes such claims are wrong because of other reasons, for example arguing that homosexual relationships  are unnatural is wrong from the biological perspective since we can observe them across numerous species etc.

My question is : would it be correct to argue that anything we do is natural because we evolved to have consciousness thus we can not claim that some actions/social practices are unnatural because they are the result of natural precesses such as evolution?

If "behaviour X in natural as opposed to behaviour Q" is a flawed argument, can we still use nature in our arguments without making a fallacious augment? If so could you please provide an example.
gpt
Steve Vogel makes an argument similar to this in *Thinking Like a Mall* (2015). Richard Dawkins’ best book, *The Extended Phenotype* (1982), uses the concept of the phenotype to make a similar argument within the domain of biology.

Neither of these authors (IIRC) argue that there is *no distinction* between the natural and the artificial, only that the distinction needs to be drawn differently. I’m sure there are authors who have made the former argument but none come immediately to mind.