Since ancient Greece， technology has been viewed as the antithesis of nature， and philosophers have often resorted to the moralistic concept of nature to criticize “unnatural” technologies. In recent years， the “appeal to nature” argument has gradually become one of the arguments for denying the legitimacy of emerging technologies. This argument argues that technology or behavior has no ethical justification because it breaks through pre-existing natural limitations. Human gene enhancement technology breaks the natural restrictions on humans by modifying the human genetic structure， and this transformation makes it the focus of the “appeal to nature” argument. However， the reliability of the “appeal to nature” argument has not been clarified as it should be. This paper analyzed and reshaped the “appeal to nature” argument for human genetic enhancement technology， examined the validity of the argument structure and the reliability of the argument premise of the “appeal to nature” argument， demonstrated the limitations of the “appeal to nature” argument， and freed the development of emerging technologies from the accusations of unreliable “appeal to nature” argument.