[Intro]
Act naturally
(After all… what else can you do?)
Quite candidly
(Is the choice even up to you?)
[Verse 1]
Philosophically
(What’s your mind’s eye see?)
Literally
(What else can you be?)
[Bridge]
After all
(Aren’t we all)
Natural
(Naturally)
One and all
(Natural)
Naturally
[Chorus]
Act naturally
(After all… what else can you do?)
Quite candidly
(Is the choice even up to you?)
[Verse 2]
Ideologically
(What’s your mind’s eye see?)
Logically
(What else can you be?)
[Bridge]
After all
(Aren’t we all)
Natural
(Naturally)
One and all
(Natural)
Naturally
(“We”)
[Chorus]
Act naturally
(After all… what else can you do?)
Quite candidly
(Is the choice even up to you?)
[Bridge]
After all
(Aren’t we all)
Natural
(Naturally)
One and all
(Natural)
Naturally
(We)
[Chorus]
Act naturally
(After all… what else can you do?)
Quite candidly
(Is the choice even up to you?)
[Outro]
Us — Indigenous
(Naturally)
We!
A SCIENCE NOTE
The question of whether everything humans do is “natural” is complex and often framed in philosophical or environmental terms. On one hand, humans, as part of the natural world, do indeed partake in nature’s processes, making their actions part of the overall ecosystem. In this sense, everything humans do could be considered “natural” because we are biologically and evolutionarily shaped by natural forces.
However, the distinction between “natural” and “man-made” often stems from human-made, intentional actions that go beyond basic survival needs. For example, creating complex technologies, altering landscapes, and extracting resources for large-scale industrial use typically introduces modifications to the environment that can be seen as “unnatural” in the sense that they deviate from the ecological balance. This distinction becomes more apparent when considering the environmental consequences of these actions, such as pollution or biodiversity loss, which are often seen as detrimental to the natural world.
Philosophically, some scholars argue that all human activities are ultimately natural because they arise from human nature. Others, however, differentiate between “human” and “natural” by suggesting that humans are now acting in ways that conflict with the natural systems from which they evolved. The debate is multifaceted, as it touches on the ethics of human influence on the environment, the consequences of technology and industry, and how we define what is “natural.”
Thus, whether human actions are “natural” depends largely on the lens through which one views the relationship between humans and the environment. For example, the philosopher Tim Ingold in The Perception of the Environment discusses how humans are part of the ecosystem, yet the creation of “unnatural” objects or systems—such as cities, machinery, or synthetic materials—diverges from natural processes. Meanwhile, environmental thinkers like Rachel Carson in Silent Spring have pointed out how human actions, while natural in one sense, often lead to unnatural consequences in the ecosystems they disrupt.
In conclusion, the classification of human actions as “natural” or “man-made” is less about the inherent qualities of those actions and more about how we define human agency in relation to the environment.