Nature Isn’t What We Think It Is

This week our reading was again unlike anything we have seen before. As its name suggests, we are presented with Twenty-two Theses on Nature. The general theme was that we need to reimagine the way we perceive and define nature. One of those that stood out to me was thesis number two. It said that we need to disconnect nature from humanity. Too often we believe we try to or believe we can mold nature to benefit ourselves. While humanity can be thought of as a part of nature, the opposite is not true. Nature is separate from humans and is not formed on anything innately human. I wonder, if we were to change this perception, or had we thought of nature in this way from the beginning, would climate change be as big of an issue as it is now? Isn’t the reason we are in this anthropogenic crisis is because we prioritized our own benefit over the health of the planet? 

Another point that I thought was interesting was within thesis number four. It described nature as “all-encompassing” but not whole. Nature as a sum does not exist. To be honest I am not sure as to whether I fully understand this point but I have never thought of nature in this way. This thesis has definitely made me think for a bit, even after finishing the entire piece. To say that nature is all-encompassing means that we exist within it. It’s safe to assume then that there are likely ecological consequences to decisions we have not even considered yet.  

I think that this collection can provide an important foundation as to how we should approach conserving, and eventually revitalizing, our environments. If we maintain the same mindset we have now, finding solutions will be harder, if not impossible.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *