My Position in Relation to the Whole
“If the concept of “nature” does not possess an objective reality, the distinction between natural and unnatural also dissolves. ”
For me, this question is equivalent to how I position myself in relation to my entire environment. My perspective is that "nature" encompasses everything; ultimately, everything in our world is made up of the same fundamental building blocks. Additionally, I find the idea that a natural being, such as a human, could create something "unnatural" paradoxical. This implies a creative force that brings something entirely new into existence, whereas I believe that everything that exists is inherently present in some form. In other words, in my view, "nature" is a social construct.
If the concept of "nature" does not possess an objective reality, the distinction between natural and unnatural also dissolves. Objects, in my opinion, can be classified based on their distance from their original state, as they existed in the world before human intervention. For me, this is a continuum, not a binary or categorical distinction. Objects far removed from their origin are human-modified or created entities so extensively transformed that their original components are barely recognizable. They are difficult to separate or revert to their pre-human intervention state. Furthermore, these objects display limited functionality within and interaction with their environment. They lack the level of integration characteristic of objects that remain close to their origin. Take, for example, a tree within its broader context compared to a wooden chair. A tree, at the origin of its existence, has various symbiotic relationships with other organisms. A chair made from the same tree, but modified by humans, primarily serves a function for humans - aside from participating in the carbon cycle when it decomposes. Objects far from their origin thus minimize their interactions within and with the broader context, thereby reducing the ecological role of their existence.
Speaking of broader context, I see myself as part of a larger whole in which all objects are fundamentally interconnected. In my view, there is a continuous fluidity: a dynamic interaction between objects, between objects and their environment, and within the objects themselves. I have learned about entropy, the principle that describes the balance between order and chaos, both within and outside systems like cells. I also have knowledge of chemical reactions, where new substances are formed that cannot easily be reverted to their original components. Yet, I believe mechanisms like these do not fully encompass the fundamental interconnectedness and ongoing transformation of all matter. Even when a chemical reaction seems to cause an irreversible change, the whole retains the same matter and energy. This suggests that there is no absolute separation between what "was" and what "is" – only a shift in how these building blocks manifest. This interconnectedness, for me, reflects a universal pattern in which every object and process participates in an endless cycle of change and interaction. In this perspective, I do not see myself as a separate entity detached from my environment but as an intrinsic participant in a continuously evolving interconnectedness.
I don’t believe there is no distinction between natural and unnatural, and I think everything is part of a whole. Even though I discard the distinction, I don’t think every object contributes positively to its environment. By "positive contribution," I refer to the extent to which an object supports ecological balance, such as promoting biodiversity, facilitating material or energy cycles, or harmonizing with existing ecosystems. Take plastic, for instance. While plastic is functional for humans, it often has detrimental effects on other parts of the ecosystem. It is difficult to biodegrade, disrupting material cycles and often harming organisms that come into contact with it. Unlike a wooden chair, which can eventually be broken down and recycled by microorganisms, plastic largely remains outside these processes. This makes it an object that, in ecological terms, is less integrated and can negatively impact the balance within its environment. But with an emphasis on "in ecological terms," since value judgments within the whole are, in principle, not applicable. If everything is part of the same whole, concepts such as "positive" or "negative" are ultimately subjective and dependent on the perspective of the evaluator.
Reflection on defining my position:
I find it difficult to reflect deeply on why I do or do not believe that nature exists. I even feel a slight aversion to this question (despite having posed it myself) because it feels as if I am forcing myself to define something that is inherently intangible. The process of defining creates boundaries and separations, whereas my intuitive sense tells me that everything is connected in a continuum. By fixing my own position, it seems as if I am once again attempting to reduce the fluidity and dynamics of reality to static concepts. Perhaps that is also why I see the idea of "nature" as a social construct – not because I completely deny it, but because I believe that the way we speak and think about it is always limited by our human perspective. Ultimately, this discussion is not a search for a definitive truth but a personal reflection on how I understand myself within an environment that is constantly in flux.