The first thing you learn when you start translating for a living is that you can never accurately translate a word unless you know the context and, of course, “nature” is no exception. So while the word and its derivatives can, of course, have a number of other meanings, in the context of this discussion and of the forum in general, the most relevant meaning would seem to be “that which is not of mankind”. Language also evolves, sometimes very rapidly, and it’s power to communicate depends on a generally accepted consensus as to what given words are widely expected to mean. Otherwise before any meaningful conversation takes place, we would need to hand out a mini-glossary with our own personal interpretation of the key words and also have it approved by the counterparty. This consensus is usually pretty well represented by the definitions of a word given in the most authoritative dictionaries, so let’s see what they have to say about “nature” in this context.
-
Cambridge English Dictionary: all the animals, plants, rocks, etc. in the world and all the features, forces, and processes that happen or exist independently of people, such as the weather, the sea, mountains, the production of young animals or plants, and growth;
-
Collins English Dictionary: nature is all the animals, plants, and other things in the world that are not made by people, and all the events and processes that are not caused by people;
-
The Britannica Dictionary: the physical world and everything in it (such as plants, animals, mountains, oceans, stars, etc.) that is not made by people;
-
Oxford Reference: the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
Here I’ve stayed with British English as this is my mother tongue and I’m well aware that discussing the finer connotations of a word in a multilingual community is fraught with risk, but as far as these four sources are concerned, there seems to be little doubt as to the general consensus on the meaning of the word in this context.
The truth is that this risks turning into a somewhat abstract linguistic discussion with opposing sides, when in fact, I feel most, if not all, of us here, are more or less in agreement about what really matters… namely our feelings of connectedness with the rest of what I call the biosphere and what others choose to call nature. A rose by any other name… does it really matter?
Well perhaps yes. I believe it is important to retain some way of expressing not just our “connectedness”, but also our “separateness”, because while man is biologically just a mammal, he has developed powers and abilities that set him apart, for better and sadly often for worse. As @jhratton observes:
It is “natural” for all organisms to act in such a way as to favour the short to medium term survival and reproductive success of the individual and therefore of the species. But if mankind in mass continues to act “naturally” in this sense, then I fear the future may not be too rosy for much of the remaining biosphere. Paradoxically, perhaps we need to stop being part of nature and start acting unnaturally by placing the good of other non-human organisms, in other words, nature, above our own. And to do so, we need some way to define the boundaries of our sphere of activity, influence and impact. The word “nature” as defined in the sources quoted above seems to me a valid choice.
P.S. In my personal glossary, for linguistic simplicity, the words mankind, him, he etc. are entirely neutral without any gender connotations, my apologies if I unwittingly cause offence.