Natural versus artificial
Obviously, the way we have so far talked about “things” etc. only makes sense if the difference between natural and artificial makes sense. If this distinction does not make sense, and we could not make out if something is “natural” or “artificial”, then we cannot even say what we are against. The intellectual branch of the pro-Thing forces want to tell you that this distinction is very complicated and difficult to spell out, so it is better to abandon it. But they are wrong. Here is a simple test, that uses the idea of ‘intervention’.1 (Note: To ‘intervene’ means to stop letting the thing be how it would be when left alone to use it for this or that purpose.) 
Here is a flow chart: 
    (c) Does this require human intervention to exist as the thing it is?
        ◦ Does it require intervention by things that require human intervention to exist, to exist as the thing it is?
Artificial things can look a lot like natural things, but they are not. This fact is recognized in how we speak of ‘fake’ things. Things that want to be like natural things but require human or machinic intervention to exist are called fake. For example, a nose with plastic surgery we call a fake nose. Fake means not true. In this case, that which is true is the natural, and we make copies of it for this or that reason, which is usually a bad reason, because if the natural is the true, why would we want something fake? 
(TBD)