> Nature in the sense of "some property habitually pertaining to the > object under discussion" is not at all the same thing as > nature in the > sense of "the unimproved ecosystem & everything in it." Yes, but the point that some people are making here (that I happen to agree with) is that there is essentially no such a thing as "the unimproved ecosystem". Humankind is a part of the ecosystem as surely as the rats, bats, and pelicans. ALL creatures modify the environment in some fashion. Men simply do it on a grander scale than others. You can't exclude men from "nature" and still talk about it in any realistic sense. The idea that we're somehow "above" Nature (i.e. the ecosystem and everything in it) is laughable. Heck, the idea that we're something special is equally laughable. Dinosaurs and their ilk were the dominant species on this planet for millions of years. Meanwhile, the recorded history of human civilization is only a few thousand years. A blink of an eye on the planetary scale. If we pollute the planet and kill 90% of known life, it will be no different than any of the other three or four mass extinctions that did the same thing. In fact, you can make an argument that mass extinction is REQUIRED in order for life to evolve to a new level. The periods following the previous mass extinctions were periods that literally exploded with new variations seeking to fill the now empty niches left by their predecessors. The only way to realistically discuss nature is to recognize that it includes us and all of our works. Drawing a line between "wild" and "civilized" areas and claiming that one is "nature" and the other is not is as fallacious as doing a survey of the pleistocene area and dividing "pristine" forests and dinosaur-infested forests into "wild" and "civilized" areas respectively. Both areas are eco-systems. They're simply inhabited by different creatures with their respective effects upon the environment. Is a bush man tribe living their lives "natural"? If so, why? I'd sumbit that it's only because of their low numbers. If they found a way to better thrive in the harsh environments they live in, they'd spread and eventually assume dominance over the continent. At what point would they become "unnatural"? The natural history of the world is a history of one type of creature becoming dominant over most of the others. Frankly, there couldn't be anything more "natural" than the conversion of the entire planet into homes for men. If that event destroyed most of the eco-systems on the planet, destroying men in the process, it would simply be yet another mass extinction that would pave the way for whatever new life evolved from the surviving lifeforms. Horrible, yes. Unnatural, not at all. Sure, define "nature" as "everything not built by men" if it makes it easier to talk about the parts of the eco-system that you want to talk about. Just keep in mind that nothing is really "wild" any more. Man's influence reaches into every part of the world and most of the "wild" areas that remain exist only because men decided there was a benefit to be had from protecting them. The idea that you can have "nature" without men is an illusion at best.