5.1 Defining Nature and the Human-Nature Context

In this chapter, I distinguish between human beings and the more-than-human.^[1] I label the more-than-human world “nature.” In reality, humans are part of the natural world, but it is more convenient and parsimonious to write the word “nature” rather than “more-than-human world.” Bearing this distinction in mind, nature includes everything in the universe other than humans–from micro atoms in the elements, micro-organisms, insects, plants, and animals through the macro-level astrophysical universe of planets, stars, and galaxies. This definition of nature is broader than definitions found in typical “nature” research. For example, Capaldi et al.’s review of nature and well-being defines nature as, “. . . environments and physical features of nonhuman origins, ranging from plants to non built landscapes.”^[2] Capaldi et. al. further distinguish between human contact with nature, interacting with the natural world, and nature connection, a subjective sense of connection with the natural world. In this chapter, my conceptualization of “listening to nature” is compatible with Capaldi et al.’s ideas of contact and connection with nature.

Throughout this chapter, I use a human-centric orientation in considering the human-nature relationship.^[3] The human-centric framework is a very narrow slice of the universe. As philosopher Ken Wilber points out, there are multiple orientations from ego (human) to ethno (group or tribe) to world (planet-global centric) to Kosmos (universal).^[4] Ideally, a Kosmo-centric perspective of nature would include all relationships of everything in the known universe, but such a comprehensive systematic investigation of nature is beyond the scope of the present chapter.