16th August 2024
There is a movement called ‘We are Nature’ (1) which aims to redefine the word ‘nature’. Dictionary definitions of nature define nature as being other than what is human. This setting apart appears assumes that that which is human is superior,more important, than nature, and thus to undervalue nature. The definition this group is looking to introduce would be along the lines of “The living world comprised as the total set of organisms and relationships between them. These organisms include bacteria, fungi, plants and animals (including humans). Some definitions may also include non-living entities as part of nature – such as mountains, waterfalls and cloud formations – in recognition of their important role underpinning the web of life.” This one comes from The Conversation – https://theconversation.com/a-new-campaign-wants-to-redefine-the-word-nature-to-include-humans-heres-why-this-linguistic-argument-matters-229338
If we see humans as being integral to, and not separate from, nature then how will that affect our understanding of what is a natural environment? For surely by this new definition a natural,
environment is not necessarily an environment free from a human presence or influence? Might a natural environment be better defined then as an environment in which there is a harmonious – long lived? – numerically rich biodiversity?
(1) https://wearenature.org/our-story/
The Green Tau 