Who has considered this and where?
Your choice.
It’s in my nature to be skeptical of narrowly defining words that are used in many different contexts. It’s natural for words to evolve and be repurposed.
4 Likes
Where did you get that information from? From what I could find, “nature” comes from the Latin word “natura”, the action noun of “nascor” which means “to be born”.
Also, all languages I know have some equivalent of the phrase “human nature” to describe characteristics/qualities “innate” in humans. Wouldn’t that be a meaning more representative of the word’s etymology?
1 Like
Depending on the source, Mahatma Gandhi is credited with a quote similar to this:
“It’s dangerous to confuse the words ‘natural’ and ‘habitual.’ We have been trained to be quite habitual at communicating in ways that are quite unnatural.”
We wondered if your skepticism for narrowly defined words is, indeed, in your nature—as opposed to a habit. What do you think?
Okay, here are two sides of the coin, as it were. jhbratton makes a good point in that such claims have, in fact, been made by exploitative interests. This makes it a fraught issue, and although eyekosaeder is correct as far as it goes, such a statement requires a lot of context to avoid defaulting to misuse and abuse.
The now-closed thread So,…What are you wearing? was very confusing to me. A community of nature enthusiasts, and yet the majority took great pains to shield themselves thoroughly from nature, swathing from head to toe in artificial materials, as if to avoid all physical contact with the nonhuman world – even while going out into it. Do we really feel a part of nature, or is it merely a philosophical position?
To an extent, yes. But your plant-filled balcony will not have the degree of complexity of an old-growth forest, with its multiple layers (ground level, understory, main canopy, emergent), each with its assemblage of specialists as well as the generalists who move from layer to layer. Your plant-filled balcony will also have a much shorter food chain and simpler food web. What is the apex predator on your plant-filled balcony? And what would that same taxon’s role be in the undisturbed wilderness that once was where your balcony is now?
Learning about nature in a vacant lot or on a plant-filled balcony is akin to watching a movie based on a literary classic; if it is done well, you will get the same story, but you will not get the depth and nuance.
3 Likes
This is a little unrelated, but I have an expensive coat made from duck down and fox pelt. It’s really warm, cozy, and good looking on top of it all, but there’s one problem: it can’t get wet. Like, why? Those animals got wet all the time and were fine, but suddenly human processing made them ineffective? What were people doing before cotton was spun or plastic was invented?
To be fair, I have gotten it a little damp a few times and it’s fine, but if it can’t be damaged by water, why was I told as much?
That is correct and it is definitely important to keep that in mind, especially when talking to people not much interested in the natural world and/or its scientific exploration.
That is also true, but it sadly goes for a lot of other stuff as well. “Survival of the fittest” is probably one of the most misused and abused concepts out there. I’ve also seen the concept of “female choice” being exploited by misogynistic hate groups in an attempt to legitimise their views.
To which extent is it our responsibility for what we say to not be misunderstood, misused, or even weaponised? I don’t really know how I feel about this, but it is definitely an interesting and important ethical question to think about.
Personally, I think I can somewhat comfortably say that I do feel a part of nature, but it is also my philosophical position. It is one of my main beliefs and/or ideals.
I’m pretty sure that the usage refeŕing to innate qualities (e.g. human nature) was the original meaning. Regardless, the idea that humans are separate from what came to be referred to as nature (or Nature) in modern English has a much longer history than that usage, firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs about creation of the universe, in general, and the creation of humans, in particular. Like many beliefs that are embedded in culture long after they have been shown to be wrong, this concept lives on in a sort of linguistic zombie state, eating the brains of those who seek words with which to converse intelligibly about the world, its biosphere and humanity’s place in it.
The now-closed thread So,…What are you wearing? was very confusing to me. A community of nature enthusiasts, and yet the majority took great pains to shield themselves thoroughly from nature, swathing from head to toe in artificial materials, as if to avoid all physical contact with the nonhuman world – even while going out into it. Do we really feel a part of nature, or is it merely a philosophical position?
Maybe it’s because being covered in mosquito bites and ticks doesn’t equal your love of nature… I get where you’re coming from, to a certain point, but.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
Henry David Thoreau said: “I love Nature partly because she is not man, but a retreat from him. None of his institutions control or pervade her. There a different kind of right prevails. In her midst I can be glad with an entire gladness. If this world were all man, I could not stretch myself, I should lose all hope. He is constraint, she is freedom to me. He makes me wish for another world. She makes me content with this.”
2 Likes
‘Nature’ is the 4%.
2 Likes
I would argue that oil and gas production IS unnatural simply because of the evolutionary advantage of foresight that humans have acquired. Other animals couldn’t comprehend the consequences of oil and gas, even if they were using it, because they aren’t equipped to think that far ahead, but humans are equipped with such adaptations.
You are all forgetting why the climate crisis was brought up into politics in the first place. No one cares about animals going extinct or the current ecosystem being uprooted and shifted in a major way; the problem is that humans don’t have a place in the future climate we are creating.
“Nature” will live on if carbon pollution “ends the world;” the problem is humans won’t. So it is ultimately for the preservation of the human race that anyone important cares about the climate crisis in the first place. The only reason humans want to stop carbon pollution is because of the basic nature they share with all animals: the want to carry on their genes. Therefore, it is unnatural for humans to both foresee the consequences of carbon pollution and also continue to cause it
I agree with lots of your points, and I don’t think that jhbratton was saying that. He was saying that some people use the logic that “humans are part of nature, and nature is good” as an excuse, which is true. Just look at all the apologists for livestock farming saying that it’s good, and natural, and that “ecosystems need animals”, when meanwhile:
In my experience, it’s quite common for people to define some perceived minimal human impact as “natural” and therefore good, as a way to avoid having to think about how we might do things differently.
Humans can be part of nature, and at the same time, we (those of us who care about biodiversity) can be against clearing rainforest for cattle pasture, oil spills and overfishing. Being part of nature doesn’t give us a free pass.
3 Likes
I also disagree with this statement
along with @eyekosaeder and @pmeisenheimer.
For one thing, it’s difficult to say with certainty why any word was invented, except perhaps for more modern/contemporary words that were created de novo for a documented, specific purpose. Most words grow from older terms in an almost organic way (in fact, phylogenetic analytical tools designed for testing hypotheses of organic evolution are now used for comparative linguistics).
The origins/roots of our current word “nature” are old, and the word’s usage and meaning have changed considerably over time. There’s actually some decent formal scholarship around the meaning and evolution of “nature” as a word. A good exploration is this article: What does ‘nature’ mean? (which is open access).
That article focuses on the origins of “nature” in Western lanugages (though of course other traditions/languages have similar concepts as well). One important point is that “nature” is used to mean many different things - in one of its broadest senses, it refers to the essential being/structure/characteristics of something. In this sense “nature” refers to the underlying structure of the world.
The article linked above starts with Greek thought (especially Aristotle, whose writings/thought really form the base of most Western scientific approaches). A key quote from that article that addresses some of the specific discussion here is:
To finish, it is noteworthy that most definitions of phusis [the word that is the origin of “nature” in Greek] do not exclude mankind. Only one—and the most famous—of Aristotle’s definitions opposes phusis to tecnè (technique, artifice), but mankind remains a part of nature, though able of making artifices. An opposed concept to nature would rather be chaos (as there is order in nature) : hence, civilized men are more “natural” in this point of view, as they live under laws, than “barbarian” peoples, submitted to disorder and then oblivious of their human nature (a man living like a beast is as unnatural as a beast living like a man) (Lenoble, [1969]). This is why “nature” is not a synonym of wild, wildness or wilderness: it is initially not a state, but a spontaneous process.
General usage of “nature” has certainly changed since Aristotle’s time, but the roots of the idea/word at least do not exclude humans.
Currently, though, I would despair of reaching a consensus about what “nature” means. To take from another article about the use of “nature” in relation to ecological balance:
“the term is widely recognized as a panchreston —a term that means so many different things to different people that it is useless as a theoretical framework or explanatory device.”
(also open access)
6 Likes
Habit is another word that has a human application (actually more than one) but a somewhat different use for non-human organisms.
As many others have already stated, a universal definition for the concept of “nature” doesn’t exist, and perhaps one doesn’t need to exist. After all, its ambiguity sparked this discussion! I don’t know about you, but I find discussing ambiguous or controversial concepts insightful and eye-opening. Moreover, because every human differs slightly to radically from other humans, no single concept or definition will ever be agreed upon by the whole of humanity.
Philosophical ramblings aside (or not), I define nature as quite literally everything, the entire Universe and its inherent processes. Living organisms are just as natural as minerals or stars. It simply turns out that the constituent particles of a human are arranged so differently than the Sun’s that the former bears the burden of consciousness and the latter will never perceive its own existence.
From a pragmatic standpoint, I am tempted not to define nature as quite literally everything, but it’s easier than constructing an exclusionary definition that says “this is natural, this is not”.
1 Like
Beautifully expressed! This quote resonates with me a lot
My late New Year’s resolution is to use panchreston in conversation at least once a week. I reckon rewilding is close to being a panchreston.
6 Likes
I definitely agree with this.
Without wanting to open a whole different can of worms, it’s like in the discussion of whether free will exists. Without picking a side on that topic, I don’t believe those who say free will doesn’t exist advocate for or excuse unethical behaviour.
Ultimately, this discussion is “just” philosophical and makes no real practical difference. It’s just interesting to think and talk about (IMO).
Our actions being natural or “unfree” doesn’t make us less accountable for them.
2 Likes