What is “Nature”?
Nature is Gone? Steven Vogel begins by noting that some environmentalists lament the
loss of “nature”. They point out that human beings have dramatically changed the entire
WORLD (e.g., due to global climate change, global environmental destruction and
change, etc.). The view is that, “No place is natural any longer, every place is artificial,
and so the entire environment has become in a certain sense a built environment.”
But, if environmentalism is the view that we ought to preserve nature, WHAT IS LEFT TO
PRESERVE? There are two possible replies:
(a) First, we could try to argue that nature is NOT gone. Though, it is diminished by
human activity, much of our planet is still “natural”.
(b) But, second, even if there is no part of the world left that is TRULY “natural”,
would this make it any more permissible to promote climate change, or dump
toxic waste into rivers, and so on? It seems like we DO still have moral duties
toward nature, or whatever it is called now (both for anthropocentric reasons
AND because it is bad for the environment itself).
What is “Nature”? The worry seems to depend on what we mean by “nature”. There are
two ways in which the term is commonly used:
(1) “Nature” includes everything that is the product of the world, and its biological,
chemical, and physical processes. (antonym: supernatural)
(2) “Nature” includes only that part of the world which does not include human
beings, or the influence human activity. (antonym: artificial)
Problem: On (1), ALL things are natural—even nuclear power plants and toxic waste
sites. These are, after all, just parts of the world. But, on (2), NOTHING we do is natural.
By definition, on (2), ANY human activity is deemed “unnatural”. Neither of these two
definitions seems satisfactory.
Again, on (1), nothing we do can destroy nature, but on (2), everything we do destroys
nature. But, the ordinary intuition is that SOME things we do destroy nature, while other
things do not. Perhaps this third definition is better:
(3) “Nature” includes everything except the things that are MADE by human beings.
1
On (3), human beings themselves would be a part of nature, as would some of their
activities—but things like tables, chairs, skyscrapers, and power plants would not be a
part of nature (rather, these things are “artificial”).
But, as Vogel points out, we ourselves are “man-made”. We “make” babies, and also
carbon dioxide, urine, feces, and so on. Perhaps (4) will suffice:
(4) “Nature” includes everything except those things that are made by human
beings, which are not the product of biological processes.
But, now we will have to define “product of biological processes”. Surely beaver dams
and bird’s nests are “natural” and the “product of biological processes.” So, then, why
aren’t buildings and cars and power plants? We might try to say, “But, beavers build
dams because that’s just what they DO. They don’t CHOOSE to do it. It is a part of their
biological disposition.” Perhaps conscious INTENT or CHOICE makes something
unnatural?
(5) “Nature” includes everything except those things that are made by human
beings, which are the product of intentional CHOICE.
But, don’t we often CHOOSE to conceive a child? Surely the product of a conscious
decision to reproduce is not artificial (while “accidental” babies are natural). Even
defecation is intentional (I choose where and when to go). Perhaps this will work:
(6) “Nature” includes everything except those things that are made by human
beings, which are conceived by the human MIND (rather than being products of
the body) and are produced by an intentional CHOICE.
Many have this idea that our minds somehow “transcend” nature. Our capacity for
rationality, and the ability to come up with plans, etc. But, though our capacity for
reason, autonomy, and intentional choice is more fully developed than that of animals,
sure, these capacities are THEMSELVES a product of evolution (a natural process).
Vogel points out that the only evidence for the fact that the products of our minds are
unnatural is because we’ve already PRE-SUPPOSED this from the outset. That is, we think
of the human mind as somehow OUTSIDE of or BEYOND nature (i.e., supernatural).
Somehow, alone out of all the species, human beings have the unique ability to take
something natural and make it unnatural; to move something from the natural realm to
the artificial realm.
2
Strangely, this very idea pre-supposes some version of anthropocentrism—the very
thing ecocentrists were trying to avoid. If humans are the ones with the unique ability to
negatively impact “nature” with their conscious activities, then there is something
“special” about us that sets us apart from nature, or the environment. But, the idea that
there is nothing special that sets us apart was the central tenet of environmentalism.
Thus, these two claims seem to be in conflict:
 There is nothing special that sets human beings apart from nature.
 Human activity is currently destroying nature.
These seem contradictory.
So, what do we do?: If nature is an untenable concept, then it seems odd to speak of our
moral duties to “preserve nature”. So, perhaps we should abandon this holism and
retreat back to an individualistic environmental ethics. Perhaps we have duties to the
world insofar as we have duties to particular INDIVIDUALS. Human activity is not wrong
insofar as it “destroys nature”. Rather, perhaps it is wrong only insofar as it HARMS
INDIVIDUAL ORGANISMS.
3