False Dichotomy Between Man And Nature?

Man can only be perceived as having one of three relationship with nature. Man is either a being that:

A. Is one-and-the-same with nature.
B. Originated from nature, but then at some point in its evolution transcended it.
C. Is, and always has been, entirely distinct from nature.

Traditional religions like Christianity (which is the only one I can truly speak for since I grew up in a Roman Catholic household) seem to favor option C. In the Bible, man is the only being that is said to have been created in the image of God. Buddhism too distinguishes between “Animal Realms” and “Human Realms” of existence, although it isn’t necessarily true that they are entirely distinct entities (due to the Buddha’s teachings on karma, past lives, and interconnectedness).

But modern intellectual and scientific thought suggests that we all originated from the same primordial soup. We weren’t created in the image of God, all living things have the same origins, and we evolved from there into what we are now.

One thing is certain however: most people today perceive man as being distinct from nature. Our proof? Rational thinking, civilization, and technology. Especially today – when one can spend a whole life’s existence never stepping foot inside a natural park – we sometimes forget nature even exists. Instead it becomes a distant dream; something we only see in the movies. Perhaps over the years there has even grown a subconscious desire of man to reunite with nature.

But wait – why do we feel so distant and distinct from nature to begin with? Are we not still nature? Now when man creates we call these things “synthesized” or “artificial.” But how can the hands of man – these hands that were in themselves built by nature – go on to create things no longer natural? How can the products of our minds – these brains that too are built by nature – go on to generate unnatural ideas?

If man and nature share the same origins than any distinction between the two at a later point in time must be completely unfounded or completely arbitrary. At what point exactly did man transcend nature? Is there even such a thing as a “nature” for man to transcend? Or did man wake up one day, look outside the window, see nothing but tall skyscrapers and think: this is not the nature they told me about in biology class. How can I be a part of this and still be a part of nature?

Perhaps there is a dualistic nature to man? Perhaps we can think of ourselves as only products of nature, but anything that is a product of us (excluding of course: reproduction, digestive waste, etc.) is “technology,” or whatever we want to call this not-nature state of being.

But even so – then why must technology be inherently distinct from nature? Did it not too come from natural things in our environment? It is not like scientists are poking their heads in and out of parallel universes and discovering un-natural or super-natural things. Are they?!

The choice to make a distinction between man and nature is ultimately up to you. No answer seems inherently right or wrong – perhaps it is only convenient in some cases to say man is different, and then not so much in other times. But if you had to choose one what would it be:

1. Are we God’s blessed creatures that were made distinct from nature?

2. Are we products of nature but since have transcended nature?

• If so, at what point did this process begin, and
• What do we call this state of “not-natural” being?

3. Or, will we always be one with nature and the distinction is ultimately a delusion?

Can I say I like all three possibilities… or would that be cheating?

Enter your email to stay updated on new articles in self improvement: