Parenting and the False Dichotomy Between Nature and Technology

NB: The quote is actually from ‘Christiane Northrup MD’, more about her in ‘Further Reading’. The Facebook page I saw the above image on was not the one mentioned in the bottom left hand corner.

A couple of months ago, I happened upon this quote posted by a breastfeeding support and advocacy page on Facebook. As a new mother, I visited many such pages while I navigated my way through learning to breastfeed, alongside other pages and communities relating to various aspects of parenting infants.

The text in the above image demonstrates an ideology that I see expressed often in the realm of online parenting information; the simplistic appeal to nature and subsequent derision of technology.

I’ll quickly state that I do not dispute that breast milk is an ideal food for babies*. I’m not quite willing to call this part of the quote out as being a straw man argument, but it is very rare in my experience to see the claim made that formula is as good as breast milk. As such, I’m not quite sure who or what the quote is intended to be in response to. Perhaps this would be more evident if the quote was not taken out of context, but for the purposes of this article, I think it appropriate to leave it as the short excerpt that has been used to create this meme.

What I wish to focus on in this post is the notion suggested in the second part of the last sentence. On reading it, my immediate response is to declare that yes, sometimes relatively new human innovations are superior to the products of several million years of evolution.

The poliomyelitis virus is the product of three million years of evolution. Relative newcomers, the range of polio vaccines that have been developed over the past fifty years have fortunately proven to be superior to the poliomyelitis virus. As a result, we are now on the verge of eradicating polio.

Snakes are evolutionary success stories and populate every continent aside from Antarctica. The administration of antivenom, a medical technology, allows us a greater chance at surviving their bites.

Some of the high risk events associated with childbirth – uterine rupture, cord accidents and other complications with delivery, post partum haemorrhage – are natural. Modern obstetric medicine with its comparatively new technologies is able to intervene when required and save the lives of both infants and their mothers.

In some developing nations, a varied diet is unaffordable and people rely on easy to grow rice to make up the larger part of their sustenance. To help combat morbidity and mortality caused by nutrient deficiencies, the humanitarian Golden Rice Project have created a genetically modified variety of rice which accumulates bioavailable beta carotine in its grains. Golden Rice is still in the development phase, the eventual goal is to distribute seed to farmers free of royalties, which they will be able to grow as they do traditional rice varieties, saving and replanting seed.

I hope the above examples not only illustrate that those things which are considered to be natural are not always the safest or most beneficial for us, but in the case of the latter two, that the natural can work in conjunction with technology to offer optimal outcomes.

My concern with separating out that which is considered ‘natural’ and that which is considered to be a product or tool of technology is the risk that we turn our backs on the safest or most beneficial choices in order to maintain an idealisation of the natural that is not always reasonable. The appeal to nature argument is used to sell many products and ideas, from harmless natural baby toiletries and foods to dangerous concepts such as rejecting vaccination and using homeopathic treatments in lieu of seeking legitimate medical care.

Automatically equating ‘natural’ with ‘safe’ is a presumption we must be mindful of. Likewise, whether we consider a concept or product to be natural should hopefully be of less relevance than whether it is the safest and most effective option.

I would like to suggest an alternative means by which we can claim our power as women (or, indeed, as parents and human beings in general). We can equip ourselves with a greater range of useful tools in our lives if we assess individual concepts and products on their own merit, rather than pigeonholing them as natural or otherwise. If we reject the notion that nature and technology are diametrically opposing notions, we can embrace both and make use of all available resources to facilitate the best possible wellbeing for ourselves and our loved ones.

Further Reading:

Christiane Northrup, MD: Science Tainted with Strange Beliefs – by Harriet Hall MD on Science Based Medicine

An Open Letter to My Fellow “Natural Parents” – by Madonna Behen on Redbook

The Golden Rice Project

* I don’t think that I am able to make this post citing such a highly emotive example without making a short statement on my position on the breastfeeding/formula feeding issue. As somebody who wanted to breastfeed my kids, I have been fortunate and tenacious enough to have succeeded – my son self-weaned at seventeen months and my daughter is still at it at the time of posting. The accepted consensus is that breast is best; I’m down with that and happily support any woman who wishes to breastfeed their child. However, if a woman chooses to formula feed, it’s her business, just as choosing to breastfeed is mine. If a woman is unable to breastfeed and wished to, I acknowledge her efforts, am sorry that things didn’t work out as she’d wanted and hope that she is feeling okay.

It is possible to advocate breastfeeding without being critical of those who formula feed. I’ve seen some awful attempts to guilt-trip women who formula feed and I do not understand what these critics are trying to accomplish. There’s no shortage of pro-breastfeeding information out there, it is unlikely that a woman who is already formula feeding their baby needs educating about the advantages of breast milk, nor is it common for women to attempt to re-induce lactation. I would ask those who make negative statements about formula feeding to question how constructive they are being. Which is of more use, a shamed, ostracised or hostile mother or a mother who feels supported and not judged?

Additionally, I acknowledge that a baby’s nourishment can be almost all-encompassing during their first year of life, but within the context of an entire childhood, it is a relatively small factor compared with whether the child is loved, supported, able to develop and express their identity and safe.



  1. We all must nurture in whatever way is best for us and those we nurture. Nurturing has no one right way and the more we educate ourselves the better we can nurture ourselves and others.

  2. “However, if a woman chooses to formula feed, it’s her business, just as choosing to breastfeed is mine.”

    Disagree. That is as selfish as a pregnant woman choosing to eat whatever she pleases and smoke during her pregnancy because that’s “her business.” It’s the business of the child as well–and possibly taxpayers who will have to deal with the expenses of a child with special needs. Might a nutritionally deficient baby also have costly health issues later in life? That is very possible. Nothing is wrong with providing information to women who are often conditioned into believing that it is ok to choose convenience over what is right. Mothers who cannot produce breast milk is one thing–formula may be the only solution. Convenience is another issue.

    The false dichotomy is that there are TWO viable, normal choices instead of one.

    1. Hello and thank you for taking the time to comment.

      Are the relative risks involved with smoking, ignoring pre-natal nutritional requirements and eating foods which carry a higher risk of contamination during pregnancy comparable with those of formula over breast milk?

      I agree that optimal infant nutrition is in the best interests of the child, the mother and society as a whole, but I think that you and I have reached quite different conclusions on the detrimental effect of formula feeding. Frustratingly, compelling evidence-based cases can be made for both positions.

      I should really note that I can only speak to my own experience, which is within the bounds of Australian culture. We have a relatively high breastfeeding rate here (compared with countries of similar economic and technological development) and I have not observed a wide acceptance of formula being endorsed for conveniences’ sake. Information on the benefits of breastfeeding is widely available and promoted by health professionals. My pre-natal classes included learning about breastfeeding, my midwives helped me with practical support during my hospital stay and I received advice and reassurance from community nurses and a lactation consultant for several months after my son was born (all of this assistance was free). The Australian Breastfeeding Association has a free help line for women who wish to discuss breastfeeding or require support also.

      Of course I would prefer that all babies are breastfed – that all mothers are capable and willing to try and that all circumstances facilitate stress-free breastfeeding relationships – but I accept that that is well beyond the scope of my influence. I am also very wary of judging the difference between unable and unwilling – I do not feel it is my call as to when it is acceptable for a woman to come to the conclusion that they’ve tried hard enough and they’ve been through enough physical pain and/or emotional distress. I feel that the psychological and physical well being of the mother is an important factor to consider.

      I am assuming that you are suggesting that information be provided to mothers who are considering formula feeding rather than those who are already doing so. The former I endorse as long as it is done in a considerate manner – here, I can assume that maternal health professionals have already covered this ground and I feel that if more information or support are desired, they can easily be sought out. However, I see no value in reciting statistics on the detrimental effects of formula feeding or opining on the long term damage being done in cases when formula feeding has already been established, or a woman has made a considered decision to move to formula. It does not strike me as constructive in establishing breastfeeding (re-lactation is a rarity) or conducive to the well being of the mother and, in turn, her family.

      Again, thank you for commenting. This can be contentious ground and I appreciate being able to discuss these matters in a respectful and considered manner.

      1. You’re welcome. You are correct. I meant an education on the subject before hand. Many countries don’t have such a good support system for expectant mothers and such articles may be the only way to provide expectant mothers with the crucial information that they need to make the best–informed–decision.

  3. “Automatically equating ‘natural’ with ‘safe’ is a presumption we must be mindful of. Likewise, whether we consider a concept or product to be natural should hopefully be of less relevance than whether it is the safest and most effective option.”

    THIS! And the rest!

Leave a Reply to mattgbush Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s