People often treat big endian as if it's more natural than little endian because English (more of less) uses a big endian system. Putting aside the fact that just because English does something doesn't make it more natural, let's look at why English uses a big endian system.
Modern English got its numerals from Arabic. Numbers are represented the same in Arabic and Egnlish (i.e. "102" represents one hundred and two in both English and Arabic). The interesting part of this is that Arabic is read right-to-left instead of left-to-right, meaning that Arabic used a little-endian system (since they'd start reading "102" from the right, which is the small side). When English speakers borrowed this, we left it "as is", which gave us the big-endian system we use today.
But this doesn't say anything about whether English was little- or big-endian before it borrowed numerals from Arabic. However, the evidence seems to suggest English used to be little-endian, and it was only the use of Arabic numerals that switched us to big-endian. Where is this evidence? Right under our noses, in words like "nineteen" (or, "nine ten", before we corrupted the pronunciation). Most Germanic languages (the family of languages most closely related to English) besides English actually go a step further than English in this regard: In German, for example "121" is "einhunderteinundzwanzig" ("ein-hundert ein und zwanzig", if we put spaces between the words), or "one hundred one and twenty" if we translate literally. In other words, the 10s and 1s columns are "flipped" with regards to how it's written. Why? For the same reason English says "nineteen": it's leftover from when German also used a little-endian system.
There's two reasons to prefere a little-endian system over a big-endian one for natural language. Firstly, When doing addition, we start at the small end of the number (because we need to carry), so in English we end up reading right-to-left when doing math, and left-to-right in other cases. Second, when reading a number out loud, we first have to count the digits. Try reading "1 234 567" out loud: the first thing you did was count the number of digits so you knew what column the "1" was in. If we wrote our numbers in a little-endian way, this wouldn't be an issue: simply start reading; the first digit is always the 1s column, so there's no need to even count the number of digits.
No. Absolutely not. If we were to start from scratch, I'd definitely prefer it, but since we are all already used to the current system, it would be much too difficult to switch. Imagine reading a book and being unable to tell what a number is without checking the publication date (since you can't tell if the number is big- or little-endian without knowing if it was published before or after we all switched endianness).
I didn't really have a point to make here, just some cool history I stumbled across. And I wanted to ruin numbers for all of you like they are now ruined for me.