What is Natural?

One of the interesting themes that has been addressed in class, the works we've read, and the posts on this blog is the theme of nature. Whether it is as a restorative device, a contrast to the darkness of science, or the ideal living condition for man, nature has consistently been portrayed in a positive light. However, I have begun to feel that nature, and what is natural is often far different than what these authors, especially the transcendentalists, believe it to be.

Primarily, the Transcendentalists seem to idealize nature and the natural world. Thoreau identifies simplicity with nature. He feels that mankind’s purpose has been distorted. Man has become a machine. Thoreau identifies inheritance of a large plot of land as a curse rather than a blessing due to the extensive work that must be undertaken to survive in such a manner. However, I have been grappling with this idea of nature versus human nature. I believe that it is inherently natural for humans to construct houses, form societies and pursue technological advancement. Strictly from an evolutionary standpoint animals who are best adapted to their environment survive and reproduce. Humans, on the other hand, adapt the environment around them to survive. This reliance on rational thought and intelligence is the only reason humans, a relatively weak species, can survive in every climate across the globe. For the transcendentalists to demand a return to a primitive lifestyle, they are denying what is natural for humans. They are not supporting nature, but rather an ignorance of the human lifestyle.

Overall, I think this issue of nature and what is natural is one of the pervasive themes of not only literature, but also human existence. The questions raised in transcendental literature are certainly interesting, but overall I feel that the answers that are found are misguided. Does anyone else have an opinion?