top of page



I wanna take a look at the words from the notion of nature and how certain very acknowledged institutions defined it. I am aware that these are not at all final definitions that everybody fully agrees with  but they reflect our relationship to nature pretty well and so I’m going to pick them apart as good as I can.


Let’s talk about nature as it is defined by Cambridge for example: „All the animals, plants, rocks etc. in the world and all the features, forces and processes that happen or exist independently of people, such as the weather, the sea, mountains, the production of young animals or plants and growth.“ 

Also Wikipedia, and many other big sources of knowledge are separating humans and human activity from the word „nature“. It makes it seem like we are at a point where we do not consider us part of something that is surrounding and enabling every single thing we do. We do not know where anything in this universe came from and we are completely unable to act against the path we are heading. Humans may have found cures for certain diseases, grow crops or fruit and are able to build homes that enables them to survive cold winters for example but coming from surviving slight temperature changes, microorganisms or viruses to excluding oneself of the unknown and seemingly endless universe which we do not understand at all and have only even been aware of for a few centuries now is so incredibly arrogant and more so ignorant. We move through nature,  breathe through nature, eat through nature, live through nature but what we do and who we are is by this definition not something of nature. The only way we are able to interact with nature is to consume it and thereby „de-naturalising“ it, as human processes are by this definition not of nature’s nature. 

Mauro Berther

bottom of page