Response 1: Defining Nature

True nature, in my opinion, is that which has been unaltered by mankind and remains in its pure state—or at least as close as possible: untamed woods; forests full of trees; wildflowers; mushrooms; and animals running freely. Although nature can be defined as the entire physical universe, I disagree with Pattiann Rogers’ definition in This Nature that “Nature is what is, everything that is, everything that has been, and everything that is possible, including human actions, inventions, creations, and imaginations." Rogers’ definition begs the question, What is not nature? In order for an “is” to exist there must also be an “is not,” so for something to be labeled as nature there must also be something labeled as not nature.

When I hear the word “nature” I immediately think of air, water, land and the environment as a whole. Unlike Rogers, I draw the line at what has been affected and created by man. Although mankind, I believe, originally belonged to nature, we have become so advanced that we have drifted from our primitive selves and as a result away from nature itself. Much of what man has created remains destructive. Animals’ habitats and views of open land and water have been replaced by skyscrapers, strip malls, stretches of concrete and the occasional park that appears to be this thing called nature. And yet, none of this so-called nature, as Rogers’ claims, is natural. When Rogers stated, “Nature is everything that is. We are not and cannot be ‘unnatural,’” I wonder where we draw the line between what is and is not natural.

It is my opinion that Rogers’ definition goes too far in that it encompasses too much: both the wild and the tame, the noble and the despicable. Despite hearing various opinions regarding this idea of what can be considered nature, I stick true to my belief that nature has and always will be wild and noble, such as the animals, plants and landscapes that remain free to grow and behave as they desire without interference. As Henry Thoreau wrote in his piece, Walking, “Life consists with wildness. The most alive is the wildest.” One of the moments when I feel most alive is when I am outside in the midst nature, perhaps when hiking or hunting for morel mushrooms, because I am surrounded by living plants. I can breath fresh air and enjoy silence save for birds chirping or water trickling down a stream without feeling constricted by tall buildings and concrete which block my view of land and air. When I encounter animals living in urban areas I cannot help but pity them. Pigeons taking shelter beneath sections of highways rather than an old, gnarled tree seem out of place because concrete and steel are not their natural habitats. Likewise, trees planted snugly along sidewalks appear unhealthy and in dire need of real earth away from cigarette butts and road pollution.

As I continue to ponder my own definition of nature, I imagine that my ideas will change. Simply hearing others’ thoughts about this topic during the first week of class has already caused me to reconsider my views. Throughout the upcoming months, I expect to question my initial opinions as they pertain to nature and incorporate such changes into my writing. However, the challenge will be to become more inventive and create new ways to approach nature when writing. In my own stories, I would like to experiment more with characters’ interaction with nature and how the natural world, whether wild or tame, affects them and also my audience.