"Chemicals" to mean "artificial chemicals"

I have often had a conversaion something like:

A: Oh, look, this product apparently contains "chemicals".
B: What do they fear people would think it was made out of? Plamsa? Neutronium?

Which is very funny. But I feel compelled to admit that "chemical" is pretty clear in this context.

"Rectangle" means "right-angled quadrilateral" but it ALSO means "right-angled quadrilateral, usually not a square." In a mathematical proof, where each line needs to be unambiguous, you would have to say "non-square rectangle" if that's what you meant. But in normal conversation -- even about maths -- "rectangle" can and should include or exclude square based on context.

Similarly, people use "chemical" to mean "chemical, usually one that doesn't have a more specific description". Which in turn often means "artificially produced", because naturally occurring chemicals are more likely to have colloquial or specific names (either because they've been known for a long time, or are complicated).

This is _indicative_ of people thinking "oh, natural is better" which can become dangerously dogmatized, but I think it's perfectly _clear_.

The above conversation is _funny_, but only some of the time is it an accurate criticism.

Reluctant Swordsman by Dave Duncan

I recently read Reluctant Swordsman by Dave Duncan, who also wrote the Past Imperative, Future Perfect series, and it seems to amplify the most interesting and most flawed parts of those books (it feels like an earlier book by the same author, and I assume it was, though I don't have the dates handy).

What I find really interesting is that it is set in a world with an active, effective, partly (but not arbitrarily) inscrutable, ruthless god. Lots of books SAY they have that, but the tension generally lasts for about three pages before you discover either (a) maybe some OTHER gods are nasty bastards, but THIS one has hung around humans and learned compassion from them or (b) even if the plot is stupid and there may be some painful inconvenience in the middle, everything the god does is actually for nice fluffy reasons or (c) things happen pretty much like they do in our world, which is then PERCEIVED as being due to the fictional god, but the actual results aren't any different.

In the Reluctant Swordsman, the main character goes against the god -- and is punished. And does what the god say -- and it works, but is horribly frustrated that it seems unethical to him and he can't tell if it IS necessary or not. And it's really interesting.

Unfortunately, the plot and characters are nicely readable, and I like them, but are a bit... off. (A bit like what you might expect if you looked only at the _cover_ of a fantasy book, although nicely done for all that.)