End of Nature
I’m going to start with a highly inflammatory statement, but one which is true (at least for me):
“Nature is causing us humans great damage.”
Yes, you read that right - I believe that nature is a massive problem. In fact I would argue that it might be the single biggest issue facing industrialised society.
Do I mean that we need to pave over the entire planet? No. Do I think that the Earth will make life impossible for our species? Although this is a real possibility, it is not what I mean either.
What I mean is that the concept of “nature” as understood by our society is perhaps the most dangerous idea we have - and it is a major driving force behind our destruction of ecosystems.
Yes, it is OK to relax now - the blog has not turned on the Earth. Quite the contrary. In this blog I’m going to explore why the concept of nature is such a problem, and what it means for us in our lives.
Nature as other
Let’s start with a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary for nature:
“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…”
[emphasis mine]
This definition is extremely clear - nature is anything that is not human or made by humans. Humans and human-made things are a separate class. More than that, even, this separate class of humans and human creations is in opposition to “nature”. This means that you can only be human or nature - you cannot be both. This also means that to be human is to be in opposition to nature. This definition is repeated in other dictionaries across the English speaking world.
A dictionary definition is important, but more important than the definition is how a word is used in daily life - as this is where the cultural idea of nature is sustained. One way to find out how we use and understand the concept of nature in our daily lives is to look at the organisations set up to try and “protect” or “support” nature. The UK has a rich grouping of such environmentally minded organisations. Many are national charities with a high profile, and highly influential. They often use nature as a term in their slogans and campaigns. Here are just two as examples:
“Everyone Needs Nature” - National Trust
“Giving Nature a Home” - RSPB
Both of these highlight that nature and humans are separate. Let’s take a look at the first as an example. “Everyone Needs Nature” implies that it is possible not to ‘have’ nature. If it is possible for us not to have it, then nature must be something that is not human. This links clearly to the definition of nature as a separate class to human. The dictionary definition is alive and well in the way the word is used in regular life.
Photo by Muhammed Zafer Yahsi on Unsplash
Unnatural
This way of using the word nature is significantly different from how the word originated. Nature as a word is rooted in the Latin nasci - which is the concept of birth. This concept has nature as the world from which we are born. It is our origin. It is a very long path that we have travelled to take nature from this meaning to something that is separate from humans and even opposed to humans. We have gone from a meaning of origin to a meaning of separation.
This transformation of the use of the word demonstrates how our culture views our ecosystems. This view is now so ingrained that most people do not realise that they hold it. That is the beauty of language and actions, they demonstrate the hidden beliefs we hold about the world. Our culture now believes humans are separate from ecosystems, and the use of the word ‘nature’ is both a very clear symptom of this, and also a tool that keeps this belief ingrained in our culture. Even many of the movements that now exist seeking to support people to “connect to nature” are unintentionally perpetuating the idea that humans are separate from ecosystems.
How this transformation took place is another (important) story, but one for another piece. Instead, it is more pressing to explore why the meaning of the word nature is important.
Why does this matter?
Human history shows that it is very easy for us to cause harm to things and beings that are ‘other’. Whether these are racially motivated wars or atrocities or trolling on social media, we have demonstrated that as soon as we can make someone or something into the ‘other’ we can treat them extremely badly. The same holds true for our concept of nature. Nature is other, so we can treat it poorly. Indeed, all the evidence is that is exactly what we have done for a number of generations now. And a lot of life, including ourselves, is suffering as a result.
Yet the evidence for humans coming from and being part of ecosystems is so strong that there can be no scientific argument otherwise. This ranges from the evidence that humans have evolved from apes to James Lovelock’s Gaia Theory which demonstrates our Earth is a single, self-regulating ecosystem of which we are a part. We are also proving it by damaging ecosystems making life harder for ourselves as a result, from the poisoning of soils to the increase in extreme weather.
The problem is that we have not yet properly understood these truths in our culture. Our (usually hidden) cultural worldview remains that we humans are separate from nature. Our worldview underpins how we act in the world, so whilst we continue to believe we are separate we will continue to act destructively. Without changing this belief, even if we ‘solve’ one ecological crisis through technology, we will continue to cause other crises.
This is the vital point: We are living and acting according to a completely untrue belief. It is no wonder that we are creating ever bigger crises. And if there is one word that crystallises this untruth it is the concept of ‘nature’. The use of this concept keeps this untrue belief at the heart of our thinking and actions about the Earth.
Photo by Corina Rainer on Unsplash
Speaking Differently
It is not that abolishing the word nature will fix everything. It is not even possible. I have provocatively titled this piece ‘End of Nature’ but really what is needed is to question what we mean by this word and concept, and to ask ourselves if this is actually a true reflection of the world as it is?
My own reflection on these questions over many years has led to me not using the term at all, but that is a personal choice. Instead I refer to the ‘more than human’ world. This indicates that there is something beyond our immediate society, but that it is not different. It is a term I first heard from David Abram. It’s not perfect, and I am sure I can do better, but by challenging myself about what I really mean, I have also changed the way I view the world and, therefore, how I act.
Speaking differently has also asked the people I speak with to question their beliefs around nature. That is the immense power of words and speech, they can dig much deeper than conscious thought and unearth hidden truths that may be new to the speaker or listener.
By ending nature what I ultimately mean is ending our current cultural concept of nature. Whether the word nature survives this reworking is not particularly important - it is the hidden belief behind the word that matters.
Banner image by Uwe Conrad on Unsplash