The Artificial

Orvell noted that despite the evolution of society, imitation and authenticity function as “compass points” that guide meaning-making and retain potency as humans continue to negotiate the real and the unreal in society (ix). Describing the natural and the artificial, Birnbacher contended that, simply put, it is the difference “between what has ‘become’ and what has been ‘made’” (2): the view is that if something exists independent of human intervention, then that would make it a natural entity. Of course, he noted such a definition was not straightforward, citing examples of products manufactured by non-human beings as clear instances when such a delineation was open to interpretation and contention. For example, much debate is posed over whether the museum experience is real or artificial (Latham); if reality television can be truly authentic (Rose and Wood); whether there is value in chemical additives in food production (Carocho et al.); and how digital twins can be used to personalise medical treatment (Padoan and Plebani). These are but a few of the plethora of occasions where the natural and the artificial are debated.