The Mootest Distinction

On my drive into work today I imagined myself being interviewed and being asked about my view on what it means for something to be natural or unnatural because I had explored the natural/unnatural topic in a very successful novel.

And in the interview I said that there is nothing unnatural and there were audible gasps from the crowd. I guess we were live in front of a studio audience.

And the interviewer asked me to explain because he or she (as long as it is someone hip and cool) was incredulous.

And I say: “here is what I mean, a square circle is unnatural. It can’t exist based on the definitions of squares and circles. Same goes for the laws of physics, thermodynamics and so on.”

“Consider,” I’d say “someone living in the Pleistocene, surviving on a day to day basis: killing what it eats, not being eaten, open to the elements but,” I’d say “learning to control fire.”

“Now what if you could take Mr. or Mrs. Pleistocene and take him/her through the future and the first thing you do is light a match in front of them. Magic! Just imagine the grunts of incredulity. Next show them a muzzle-loader and shoot a Mastodon from 400 yards. Dead! Dinner is served. Then sit them in a model A car and drive through streets lined with tall buildings using arches and then stop your drive at the airport where a jet takes off and flies in the sky. Inconceivable! They would grunt uncontrollably and you would put your earbuds in and select a song from itunes and walk off into the sunset.”

“So you see,” I’d say “natural/unnatural is the mootest (I’d coined the term in the very successful novel) distinction.”

The host would look at me with all the content of a student of Socrates and every audience member would smile and I’d say:

“The future is unnatural to the past and a square circle is the least of our concerns.”

My next novel would fail miserably.