We Have Too Many Definitions of Nature. Maybe Nature Wants it that Way.

I thought I knew the definition of nature, until I looked up the definition. On a common sense level, I completely get nature. And I think you do too. It’s not until we ponder the official definitions (yes, plural) of nature that things go sideways. 

Let’s look at what Dictionary.com says about the matter.

Definition of “Nature” from Dictionary.com

At a glance, the first problem is that there are seventeen definitions of nature. Seventeen! I’m no scholar, but when a word has seventeen definitions, I think it’s safe to say we’re confused. If you asked your friend a question and they gave you seventeen different answers, many of which contradicted the previous ones, you’d think they were either completely clueless or full of shit. 

The second conundrum is that most of the main definitions of nature don’t include humans at all. Insert existential crisis here. How is it possible that we’ve made it this far without an agreed upon definition of nature and clarity on whether or not humans are part of it? This is kind of a big problem isn’t it? 

Thinking through the definitions, I see four bigger themes emerge. For discussion, I’ll call them Not Human, Universal Forces, Raw & Wild, and Inner Forces. Put on your astronaut helmet because we’re about to drift around space a bit and see if we can make some sense together.

Not Human

As the handle suggests, this batch excludes us humans. Once I get past being offended, I can see how this view exists.  If humans were wiped off the face of the Earth tomorrow, the ostensible features of nature, like trees, rivers, and flowers would keep on going without us. What’s left without people would still be nature, right?

However, there might be a loophole here, albeit a morbid one. When a human body decomposes into the dirt, it eventually becomes part of a tree (or something living like that). Doesn’t that mean that humans are indeed integral to nature? Some think not, even though this set of definitions seems to defy biology. 

Universal Forces

The laws of physics govern this line of thinking. Everything is in, it’s all part of nature. The energy that runs our guts and makes the moon whirl around the Earth is all part of it. 

From my limited understanding of physics (I had one class in college taught by a German Persian man who yelled at us a lot and told us we were stupid), the universe is made up of one big field of energy. In other words, no separation whatsoever between humans and nature. We’re just one big fat and flowy blob of energy. 

I can get my head around this. We’re just tiny specks of space dust in a series of millions of interconnected galaxies. Everything in it is nature. Simple on the surface, but it raises tough questions.

It’s easy to see that pottery made from clay, pulled from the ground beneath our feet, could be considered part of nature but what about a laptop? If you think that’s a dumb question, then please join me for a little thought experiment. 

Imagine watching a bird build a nest. Flitting around, gathering bits of twigs, and whatever it can find in its local ecosystem, creating a beautiful thing in which to live and care for its young. From afar, witnessing this could be awe inspiring. You might even say, “Wow, what a wonder of nature.” Now, if you zoom out far enough (imagine standing on the moon), and you watched human beings make a laptop, from materials they gathered from their ecosystem, it would have a lot in common with the bird making the nest. Should the laptop be considered part of nature too? 

According to the Universal Forces thinking, it’s a resounding yes. But the idea of synthetic or built nature doesn’t quite pass the you-know-it-when-you-see-it test. It's a logical, but deeply unsatisfying, answer. 

Raw & Wild

While these definitions include humans, they lock nature into the amber of a time period that was raw and had a seemingly intuitive balance to it. 

This is always a tempting narrative, and I have to admit I’m a sucker for it. It’s why ancestral food and fitness trends like paleo catch on like wildfire in modern life. They rest on the assumption that we used to have things figured out, and through the advent of culture and technology, we screwed it up. In essence, nature includes humans as long as they don’t try to get fancy and create things or get too greedy. The line from Agent Smith in The Matrix comes to mind. 

“Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus.”

This rings eerily true but then aren’t viruses part of nature as well? Take that Agent Smith. The hidden meaning in the Raw & Wild definitions hints at something deeper within us that makes the difference. 

Inner Forces

This last theme implies there’s something primordial within us that governs our instincts and defines our character. Perhaps it’s our true self, or soul, that is nature. On one hand, I like this because it helps me feel a sense of connection with everything in the living world. 

Then I start thinking about consciousness and how slippery it is through the fingers of the mind. I also loop back to back to the Universal Forces definitions and wonder if there’s any difference between the Inner Forces and Universal Forces? Aren’t they run by the same thing? This is when smoke starts coming out of my ears and I scream, “I don’t know shit about f*ck!” channeling my inner Ruth Langmore, because this stuff is confusing. 

What’s Missing?

Perhaps not surprisingly, the dictionary doesn’t even acknowledge any indigenous perspectives on nature. My limited understanding is that traditional cultures often view nature as an extended ecological family that shares kinship. Through this lens, experiencing nature is considered a way to connect with our ancestry. I like this concept a lot because it honors life in a way that transcends time. It’s also pragmatic in recognizing the reciprocity that sits at the heart of our shared, dynamic experience with everything on this planet.  

So, where does this leave us? 

Clearly, this is a more questions than answers situation. Maybe one day we’ll have a grand, unifying definition for nature. Then again, maybe not. Nature seems to not want to be defined, labeled, or put in a box. I think we can all relate to that. Perhaps that’s the lesson, to loosen our grip on the labels, and allow our curiosity to remain open as we fully experience all the wonder and mystery nature has to offer. When we take this intuitive approach, that’s when it all starts to make perfect sense.