● "Its focus is on protecting nature against the harms generated by human action.

"

Traditional environmentalism has primarily focused on protecting nature against

human-generated harms:

​ Environmentalism has traditionally been concerned with safeguarding the natural

environment from the detrimental impacts of human actions. The primary goal has been
to prevent harm to nature itself, rather than the built environment or technological
infrastructure.
​
​
​ "Environmental philosophy reflects this concern. Its central theme is to find an
appropriate way to understand and defend the ontological and ethical status of
nature."
​ "Environmental ethicists who want to expand the reach of moral considerability
beyond its traditional limitation to humans speak of the 'rights of nature.'"
Environmental philosophy centers around understanding and defending the ontological and
ethical status of nature:

​ Environmental philosophy seeks to delve deeper into the ontological (nature of being)
and ethical aspects of our relationship with the natural environment. Scholars in this
field aim to explore the moral and conceptual frameworks that govern human
interactions with non-human entities and the natural world.

● The real core of the environmental crisis, McKibben claimed, was that nature
itself had literally been destroyed."
● "Human intervention has affected everything, and so everything in the world is
different from what it would otherwise, 'naturally,' be."

Bill McKibben's book, "The End of Nature," argues that nature has been destroyed due to
human-induced climate change and technological interventions:

​ McKibben posits that the notion of an untouched, pristine nature no longer exists.
Human activities, particularly those causing large-scale climate changes like global
warming and the depletion of the ozone layer, have fundamentally transformed the
Earth's systems. As a result, no square inch of the planet can be considered truly natural
anymore.
 ● "If McKibben is right, defending nature makes no more sense than defending the
Holy Roman Empire or rooting for the Brooklyn Dodgers."
● "The end of nature, then, once it has occurred can never be reversed. And so if
environmentalism is concerned with protecting nature, then if McKibben is right
environmentalism is simply over; there is no role for it any more."

The end of nature raises questions about the purpose and role of environmentalism:

​ With the idea that nature has ended or been severely altered, the text challenges the
traditional framework of environmentalism. It questions whether defending nature, as it
was once understood, remains a valid objective. The author suggests that if nature has
been irretrievably transformed, environmentalism may need to evolve and expand its
focus beyond protecting nature alone.

Environmental concern should continue even in the absence of a traditional understanding of

nature:

​ The text proposes that despite the altered nature of our environment, environmental
considerations remain relevant. The absence of traditional nature should not diminish
the importance of addressing issues such as global warming, ozone depletion, or toxic
waste disposal. Environmentalists should continue to oppose processes that harm the
environment, even if the concept of nature has shifted or become less clear.

By reflecting on these key points, we are prompted to reconsider the focus of environmentalism

and explore new avenues for environmental thinking and action. The text challenges us to

broaden our perspective beyond nature alone and consider the built environment as a crucial

component of our environmental concerns.

​ "Its focus is on protecting nature against the harms generated by human action."
​ "Environmental protection means the protection of nature, and environmental
harm means harm to nature."
​ Traditional environmentalism focuses on protecting nature, emphasizing the
harms generated by human action:
● Environmentalism has traditionally been concerned with protecting nature
from the negative impacts caused by human activities.
 ● The built environment and technological infrastructure are not the primary
focus of environmentalists. Their concern lies with the natural
environment and the potential threats posed to it by human actions.
​
​ "An enormous amount of practical and theoretical energy is spent on trying to
protect wilderness against its destruction by human alteration."
​ Wilderness plays a central role in American environmentalist discourse:
● The idea of wilderness, referring to untouched and unaltered land, has
been a significant topic in American environmentalism.
● There is a dedicated effort to protect wilderness areas from human
intervention and preserve them in their pristine state.
​
​ "The concept of wilderness does not play as significant a role in most other
nations."
​ "The landscapes the first Europeans thought of as unspoiled wilderness had in
fact already been transformed by the activities of those humans who lived in
them."
​ The concept of wilderness is culturally bounded and based on a specific
historical experience:
● The significance of wilderness differs across cultures and nations.
● Wilderness preservation in American environmentalism is linked to a
particular historical narrative of encountering a wild continent and the
subsequent process of taming and pushing back the frontier.
​
​
​ "To emphasize wilderness protection is to deemphasize the problem of
determining a way for human beings to live in an environment in a sustainable
and ecologically healthy manner."
​ "The dream of an unworked natural landscape is very much the fantasy of people
who have never themselves had to work the land to make a living."
​ Emphasizing wilderness protection may overlook sustainable human interaction
with the environment:
● The exclusive focus on preserving wilderness can neglect the need to
develop sustainable practices for human beings to coexist with the
environment.
● The romanticized notion of untouched nature can hinder discussions on
finding a balanced and sustainable relationship between humans and the
environment.
​
 ​ "The end of nature might be something that, in the Heideggerian phrase, has
always already happened."
​ "One cannot encounter a landscape at all without transforming it."
​ The end of nature might have occurred long ago and is intertwined with human
existence:
● The concept of the "end of nature" suggests that nature has already been
significantly impacted and transformed by human activities.
● The transformation and alteration of landscapes by human presence have
been ongoing throughout history.
● The encounter with any landscape inherently changes it, making it
challenging to identify a truly untouched and pristine natural environment.
​
​
​ "What happens if the 'end of nature' is something intrinsic to the condition of
human beings?"
​ "Would it turn out that such an environmentalism had always been misguided?"
​ "An environmentalism after the end of nature would be exactly what needs to be
developed."
​ Environmentalism should adapt to an understanding of the end of nature:
● If the end of nature is accepted as a historical reality, environmentalism
needs to evolve accordingly.
● Instead of focusing solely on protecting an idealized notion of nature,
environmentalism should consider sustainable practices within the
human-altered environment.
● Rethinking environmentalism beyond the concept of wilderness and
exploring human-environment relationships can lead to a more practical
and effective environmental philosophy.

What is Nature

​ "The ambiguity of the concept of nature has been repeatedly noted... the concept
is too ambiguous, too confusing, too likely to issue in antinomies... to be helpful
in discussions of how human beings ought best to live in the world."
​ "The definition of the term turns out to be so slippery that all attempts to pin it
down seem equally doomed to fail."
​
​ The concept of "nature" is ambiguous, confusing, and prone to contradictory
interpretations:
 ● "The concept of 'nature' is one that we ought to give up, one whose loss
might actually mean an improvement in the quality and rigor of our
thinking about the human relationship to the environment."
● "The definition of the term turns out to be so slippery that all attempts to
pin it down seem equally doomed to fail."
​
​
​ Nature" here means "that portion of the world that is separate from the human, or
more specifically from human society."
​ "The violation of that dualism, the encroaching by one side of it on the other, that
McKibben is criticizing."
​
​ The author explores the distinction between "Nature" (referring to the nonhuman
world) and "nature" (referring to the world separate from human society):
● "'Nature' thus here means that portion of the world that is separate from
the human, or more specifically from human society."
● "The violation of that dualism, the encroaching by one side of it on the
other, is criticized."
​
​
​ McKibben's concern is focused on the end of "nature" (the separation between
the human and nonhuman world) rather than "Nature" (the broader physical
world):
● "When I say that we have ended nature, I don't mean, obviously, that
natural processes have ceased... But we have ended the thing that has, at
least in modern times, defined nature for us—its separation from human
society."
● McKibben worries about a world where human influence has eroded the
separation between nature and human society.
​
​ The protection of "nature" goes beyond safeguarding specific objects; it involves
preserving the naturalness and separation between the human and nonhuman
world:
● "The protection of nature must be understood to mean something over
and above the protection of particular objects within nature: it means the
protection of naturalness, of the separation between the human world and
a world other than us."
 ● McKibben emphasizes that the loss of nature extends beyond
environmental crises like climate change to the encroachment of the
human world upon the nonhuman world.
​
​ The distinction between "nature" and "Nature" raises questions about humans'
place in the natural order and their ability to transform the world:
● The author questions the distinction between the natural and the human
world and whether humans can be considered natural.
● If humans are part of nature, then their actions and artifacts, even if
transformative, would still be part of nature.
​ The text raises doubts about the normative implications of the concept of
"nature":
● The two meanings of "nature" (the physical world and the nonhuman
world) don't offer a clear normative basis for environmental ethics.
● Protecting "nature" in the narrower sense (the nonhuman world) either
requires complete abstention from human interaction or becomes
irrelevant if humans are part of nature.
​ The text concludes with a dilemma regarding the meaning of "nature" and its
implications for environmental theory:
● The claim that humans are ending nature cannot be a mere matter of
definition, but it requires a substantive understanding of human actions
and their relationship to nature.
● The dilemma arises from the question of whether humans are fully part of
Nature or possess something "supernatural" that distinguishes them from
it.

In this text, the author explores the concept of "nature" and its implications in
environmental philosophy. They argue that the concept of nature is ambiguous,
confusing, and prone to contradictions, making it difficult to use in discussions about
human beings' relationship with the environment. The author distinguishes between
"Nature," referring to the nonhuman world separate from human society, and "nature,"
the broader physical world subject to ordinary physical and biological processes. They
highlight environmentalist concerns about the end of nature, which signifies the loss of
the separation between the human and nonhuman worlds. However, the author raises
questions about the distinction between the natural and human world, suggesting that if
humans are part of nature, then their actions, even those with environmental
consequences, can be considered natural. The text also explores the normative
implications of protecting nature and raises doubts about the effectiveness of such
efforts. Ultimately, the author confronts the dilemma of defining "nature" and questions
whether there is a third meaning or whether humans possess a certain "supernatural"
aspect.

The natural and artificial

he author challenges the notion that humans are separate from nature:
​ "For humans are alive too, of course, and have a place in the biosphere, and so
they still remain natural even using this third meaning of the word."

This quote emphasizes that humans are part of the natural world and have their place
within the biosphere. It challenges the idea of humans being separate from nature by
highlighting their inherent connection to the natural environment.

The author questions the distinction between natural and artificial human products:

​ "What distinguishes, then, our natural products from the artificial ones?"

This quote highlights the author's skepticism towards the clear differentiation between
natural and artificial human creations. It suggests that determining the boundary
between the two categories is not straightforward and raises the question of how we
define what is considered natural or artificial.

The author highlights the complexity of defining natural human actions:

​ "Why is respiration a biological process, and not the extraction and combustion
of fossil fuels?"

Here, the author points out the difficulty in distinguishing between natural and artificial
human actions. By comparing respiration, a natural bodily process, with the extraction
and combustion of fossil fuels, which are human activities, the author questions why
one is considered natural while the other is seen as artificial. This highlights the
complexity of determining what qualifies as natural or artificial behavior.

The author argues against the dualistic perspective of humans as separate from nature:

​ "The human body is natural, and so too are that body’s products: babies,
exhalations, feces... Humans act intentionally in Nature, not outside it."
This quote challenges the dualistic perspective that separates humans from nature. It
asserts that the human body and its products, which are considered natural, are
inseparable from nature itself. It further emphasizes that human actions, even those
driven by intention and consciousness, are still part of nature and not outside of it.

The author critiques the anthropocentric view that humans are unique and capable of
transforming nature:

​ "The human mind, seemingly not a product of ordinary evolutionary processes...

appears to this dualism as something sui generis... isn’t it exactly as a conqueror,
although now a dangerous conqueror who must be resisted, that human beings
appear on this account?"

In this quote, the author challenges the anthropocentric perspective that portrays
humans as unique beings capable of transcending nature. The author suggests that
considering the human mind as something distinct from ordinary evolutionary
processes implies a view of humans as conquerors who pose a threat to nature. This
critique challenges the assumption of human exceptionalism and highlights the
potential negative consequences of such a perspective.

The author challenges the continuum argument for naturalness:

​ "But although this fact is frequently mentioned as if it showed that the dualism
posited by such a view of nature does not perniciously remove human beings
from the natural order, it shows no such thing."

The author challenges the notion that viewing naturalness as a continuum, with varying
degrees, prevents the removal of human beings from the natural order. This quote
suggests that the continuum argument does not address the underlying dualistic
perspective and fails to address the potential separation of humans from nature.

Overall, the quotes support the key points of questioning the separation between
humans and nature, challenging the distinction between natural and artificial human
products, critiquing anthropocentrism, and emphasizing the complexity of defining
natural human actions
Against Nostalgia

The concept of nature faces significant difficulties in environmental philosophy:

​ "The idea that environmental philosophy can (or must) base itself on the defense
of nature against human depredation confronts at least three problems."

Elaboration: The author points out that the idea of environmental philosophy being

centered around protecting nature from human impact encounters challenges. This

suggests that the traditional view of nature as something to be preserved may not be as

straightforward as it seems.

Nature may have already ended, rendering environmental philosophy late to the scene:

​ "One is that McKibben might turn out to be right: nature has already ended, and
therefore environmental philosophy comes on the scene too late."

Elaboration: The author considers the possibility that nature has already been

irreversibly transformed by human activities. If this is the case, then environmental

philosophy focused on preserving nature may be arriving after the fact, making it

ineffective in addressing the current environmental issues.

The distinction between nature and the human may be ambiguous and problematic:

​ "Not only, that is, might nature have ended, or have always already ended, the
concept of 'nature' might be such an ambiguous and problematic one."

Elaboration: The author suggests that the concept of nature itself is unclear and prone

to difficulties. It becomes challenging to draw a clear line between what is considered

nature and what is considered human. This ambiguity raises questions about the

significance and usefulness of basing environmental philosophy on such a concept.

Nature as a normative standard presents difficulties:

 ​ "The implicit connections between the natural and the right, and between the
unnatural and the wrong, are strong ones indeed."

Elaboration: The author highlights the common association of nature with a normative

standard, where natural is seen as good and unnatural is seen as bad. However, this

connection can be problematic and lead to ethical dilemmas. It questions whether

nature can serve as a reliable guide for human behavior and decision-making.

Appeals to nature as a normative standard face significant challenges:

​ "Ought cannot be derived from is; a descriptive account of a state of affairs tells
us nothing about the value of that state."

Elaboration: The author argues that normative claims cannot be derived solely from

descriptive accounts of nature. Simply describing the state of nature does not provide

guidance on how humans should act or what values should be prioritized. This

challenges the notion that nature alone can determine ethical obligations.

An environmental philosophy without appeals to nature is necessary:

​ "An environmental philosophy after the end of nature seems to me not only
possible but also necessary."

Elaboration: The author suggests the need for an environmental philosophy that moves

beyond the concept of nature, given its difficulties and limitations. Instead, focusing on

the built or "unnatural" environment that humans inhabit may offer a more realistic and

practical approach to addressing environmental concerns.

Environmental critique and normative foundations remain important:

​ "Environmental philosophy cannot separate itself from environmental critique...

something like a normative foundation for that critique and for its justification...
must be available."
Elaboration: The author emphasizes the importance of environmental critique and the

need for a normative foundation to support it. While moving away from nature as a

standard, it is still crucial to have a basis for evaluating environmental actions and

proposing justifiable solutions to environmental problems.

These elaborations provide a deeper understanding of the key points in the text,

highlighting the challenges surrounding the concept of nature and the necessity of

rethinking environmental philosophy in light of these difficulties.

Regenerate response

In this text, the author explores the concept of nature and its implications for
environmental philosophy. They highlight the difficulties associated with basing
environmental thinking solely on the defense of nature against human impact. The
author presents three main problems: the possibility that nature has already ended, the
ambiguity of the nature-human distinction, and the problematic nature of using nature
as a normative standard.

The author questions whether environmental philosophy arrives too late if nature has
already been irreversibly transformed by human activities. They also argue that the
distinction between nature and the human is unclear, making it challenging to define
and protect "pristine" nature. Moreover, the concept of nature as a normative standard
raises ethical dilemmas and fails to provide a reliable guide for human behavior.

The text suggests the need for an environmental philosophy that moves beyond the
concept of nature and focuses on the built or "unnatural" environment humans inhabit.
This approach acknowledges the complexities of our current environmental situation
and emphasizes the importance of considering the environment we actually live in.

The author concludes that environmental critique and the search for normative
foundations remain crucial. While the concept of nature faces difficulties, it is still
necessary to have a basis for evaluating environmental actions and proposing
justifiable solutions to environmental problems.

Overall, the text challenges the traditional understanding of nature and advocates for an
environmental philosophy that goes beyond nature-centered thinking. It calls for a
reevaluation of our relationship with the environment and the adoption of a more
practical and realistic approach to address environmental challenges