Just something I find a little funny:

"Researchers Gurven and Kaplan have estimated that around 57% of hunter-gatherers reach the age of 15. Of those that reach 15 years of age, 64% continue to live to or past the age of 45. This places the life expectancy between 21 and 37 years."

So OP is probably around 18, so it's basically a coin toss as to whether he'd actually be alive in a hunter-gatherer society and be able to physically express his support of this type of society. I don't mean to start an argument with OP but this is just a point I found kind of funny.

That wasn't the argument you made, that's a blatant ad hoc modification. You said: — MadWorld1

Then you misinterpreted my first statement. It was my assertion all along that humans are not special or different from other species in having unique behaviors that define them as a species. All species possess certain unique characteristics that make the a separate species. If other animals have unique behaviors, and they are products of their physiology and labeled "natural", then why do humans deserve a different term to for their unique behaviors that are the result of their physiology?

This is where you've misunderstood me. I would think that they're unnatural as well, similar to how I would feel about aliens. For example: if humanity went extinct and some population of chimpanzees evolved to be similarly intelligent to us now in, say 20 million years, and they started doing what were doing - mass destroying forest, forcing themselves to be sedentary even though they feel bad from it etc. - i'd be there calling them unnatural. I've been consistent on this. I've been consistent on my subjective understanding of naturalness lol — MadWorld1

You're equating human activity to a natural disaster. Think about the environmental consequences of an asteroid impact, yet it is understood to be a natural disaster. Other species modify their environments, just not on the scale that humans, but this is because of the physiological differences between humans and other animals (large brains and opposable thumbs).

I agree with you that words need (or at least ought) to be used consistently and in an non-contradictory fashion, and I'm not saying that your analytical statement is an invalid one. It's valid just as the statement "all parents have children" is, but it still doesn't say anything descriptive about the world - the validity of the statement stems from the definitions entailing each other. It's really somewhat of a tautology. Your issue is that your statement doesn't refer to things other than what defines the words and their relationship. That's what makes your statement analytical. — MadWorld1

Then you need to come up with a consistent use for "unnnatural". I told you that we could use any term that you want, so I'm not saying anything that is unfalsifiable. What I am trying to get you to refer to is the relationship between humans and the world. What term would you use to describe that relationship, and is it the same type of relationship that every other species has with the world?