I use "wild" or "raw", vs artificial to describe such phenomena, even though it is of little practical use. How does the redefinition make anything worse? My

I use "wild" or "raw", vs artificial to describe such phenomena, even though it is of little practical use. How does the redefinition make anything worse? My take is that, since nature is everything there is, it becomes useless as a concept and can be safely eliminated from the discourse. Its current definition is poisonous.