Harm reduction, mainly. At least, I'd assume. Just humor this view:

At some point this sub was, very arguably, far too experimental (like when tianeptine sodium was released) for its own good, being that we had adolescents taking SARMs with their parents' credit card and shit... drives me nuts.

Now consider this:

The more time that a substance has been used in practice, the more time we have to observe the main effects and side effects...

Just as well, the more novel the substance, there's at least less evidence as to how safe it is, which is because not enough ppl have tried it yet, and not for long enough either (to illustrate: we have experienced how potentially habituating and nightmarish tianeptine sodium can be, because we had developed experience using it, and experimenting, to gain a greater understanding of its effects; then we discovered it was an opioid--whoops).

Now look at Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and ... well, actually most other countries on Earth..

They've been using natural medicine for so long, in practice, that we now understand whether all these natural substances will (or won't) have a tendency to exhibit positive main effects and/or negative side effects (and to what degree they do such, if so) in the user.

It's just that: novelty always assumes risk.

Things like Tianeptine Sodium and Phenibut assumed a great deal of risk by releasing so openly and "OTC," for lack of a better word... especially when trialled by someone who may benefit highly from them, yet also bears addictive behavioral tendencies (whether they had noticed, or not). Therefore, now we have a potential hazard.

This whole idea makes "natural" seem safer, in the eyes of the public.

....

But you are right: no legit scientist ever asserted that the organic nature of a substance (or even "practice," like meditation or 'nofap') makes it "better" merely because it's natural

It's more like: substance (or practice) may be better understood, if it has more research and history backing it.

So I think you're certainly validated in your stance, considering that this is an experimental sub.

And so you're correct as I see it; people are making up this idea that one substances is superior to another just because it's natural, and it's because they didn't observe that the natural ones have just been used for longer, and thus are backed by more evidence. But so are things like Palmitoylethanolamide!

I prefer 4-AcO-DMT to shrooms; sorry, nature, but as I see it, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery