Rediscovering “Nature”: Why the Word that Defines Our Planet Still Defies Definition

Olivaceous Piha

21-10-2025

“Wild is not chaos. Wild is rhythm unmeasured.”

In Kingfisherish Wandering [1]

© Wix

What does “nature” truly mean? Though it lies at the heart of environmental science and conservation, the word itself carries an extraordinary weight of ambiguity [2,3]. In “What does ‘nature’ mean?”, the authors trace the etymological, philosophical, and cultural evolution of “nature” to reveal how this single word has shaped—and sometimes divided—our relationship with the living world [4].

The study begins by observing that modern societies have built extensive institutions and policies around “nature protection,” yet the concept itself remains vague. Its meaning has shifted repeatedly through time—from the Greek phusis (“growth” or “process of becoming”), to the Latin natura (“birth” or “character”), and later to the Christian idea of “creation,” where nature became something external to humanity and subordinate to divine will. During the Enlightenment and industrial eras, this shift deepened, and nature was increasingly seen as raw material for human progress, paving the way for the ecological crises of the Anthropocene [5,6].

Ducarme and Couvet [4] identify at least four dominant modern definitions of nature: as untouched wilderness; as the totality of physical reality; as a dynamic life process; and as an ideal essence or character. These varying conceptions underpin opposing conservation philosophies—from strict preservation to ecological restoration and reconciliation ecology [7]. The authors argue that understanding these semantic differences is crucial: without clarifying what “nature” means, conservationists risk misunderstanding each other and alienating the public.

Rather than seeking a single, rigid definition, the paper calls for embracing the plurality of meanings as a source of strength. Cultural, linguistic, and philosophical diversity in defining nature can foster inclusive and context-sensitive conservation policies. This resonates deeply with the concept of Nature Quotient (NQ)—the capacity to harmonize human cognition and behavior with ecological systems [8]. Recognizing multiple “natures” allows societies to evolve from domination to coexistence, cultivating individual peace through humility before the living world and social peace through shared stewardship across beliefs and disciplines [9].

References

[1] Nguyen MH. (2025). Kingfisherish Wandering. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FVLLLXNW/

[2] Simberloff D (2014) The “balance of nature”-evolution of a panchreston. PLoS Biol 12(10):e1001963. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001963

[3] Larrère C, Larrère R. (2015). Penser et agir avec la nature. Une enquête philosophique.

[4] Ducarme F, Couvet D. (2020). What does ‘nature’ mean? Palgrave Communications, 6, 14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0390-y

[5] White L. (1966). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155(3767), 1203-1207.

[6] Merchant C. (1980). The death of nature: women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. Harper & Collins.

[7] Rosenzweig ML. (2003). Win-Win ecology. how the earth’s species can survive in the midst of human enterprise. Oxford University Press.

[8] Vuong QH, Nguyen MH. (2025). On Nature Quotient. Pacific Conservation Biology, 31, PC25028. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC25028

[9] Nguyen MH, Ho MT, La VP. (2025). On “An” (安): Inner peace through uncertainty, nature quotient, and harmony with Dao. http://books.google.com/books/about?id=NIKMEQAAQBAJ