“Nature” and “natural” are normative terms that commonly distinguish the world altered and created by humans from the world that isn’t altered or created by humans. It’s clear in context that Sakamoto is using the term accurately in a normative sense, not making a semantic error.

And that normative sense succeeds in separating humanity from nature, creating an "Us vs It" narrative that makes pollution easier to ignore.

After all, if everything humanity does is pollution, why single any specific acts out?

Pollution goes on because it's the convenient path of least resistance, has short term benefits (e.g. we keep indulging in consumptiona as usual) and there are huge profit interests. That simple.

How we see nature plays little role, in after-the-fact justifications or condemnations. In fact pollution could be justified under either view:

Humanity is different than nature: all we do is pollution, in the sense that is outside of nature. So why single any specific act out? Or other potential arguments: "We are better than nature, and we'll eventually just sort pollution out with our technology".

Humanitity is "just" nature: so what we do is natural, including pollution. No need to do something else, we just keep doing what comes natural to us, including polluting. Why consider huge heaps of human garbage any worse that we consider other animals creating their own waste?

> Humanity is different than nature

This is a dogmatic statement influenced by religions that put humanity as a separate creation.

Humanity is part of nature. Fixing the world requires accepting that.

This would imply every human action is 'unnatural'...

I think the key is "world".

If you yourself can cut a tree down and do whatever else to make a piano, there's no world created by humans. It'll take you a while but in the end there's only you and your shiny new piano and nature.

If there is a distributed process with countless people and organizations using intricate mechanisms to build components of mechanisms that build mechanisms that extract materials for building mechanisms for preparing different components of a piano, never seeing or knowing the whole end result... that's a world. If you can click a button and have this thing show up at your house and not even know about everything that goes into it (much less do it yourself)... that's a world.

>If there is a distributed process with countless people and organizations using intricate mechanisms to build components of mechanisms that

And then someone will go on being pedantic and bring forward bees and ant colonies and the like. Let's call it "a matter of degree/scale/breadth" this might shut them up!

I was going to point out that it is kind of a spectrum but decided to try and see what I can make of binary differentiation. It's not great, too vague, writing doesn't like that and favors black and white thinking and neat causality chains, but few are able to see it as a limitation of the medium instead of how things actually are.

Only under a naive mechanistic non-contextual machine-like reading :)

> naive mechanistic non-contextual machine-like reading

There's so many modifiers to 'reading' that I, along with probably many readers, are unsure what your trying to express.

The whole nature vs civilization narrative, is a story told by happy regressors, who want to return to a ilusionary before time, were all things were harmony and civilization was not. It is of course, a call for mass murder on billions of humans with the rumbling instincts from the brain stem and guts as justification. Were it justified with any other argument, civilized society would tear them to shreds, but in the robe of the shaman, they are exempt from the duty of reasoning.

None the less, his music is great and can be enjoyed, like any other artists, without listening to the political and culture drivel that artists sadly often produce. They are easily captured and swayed by instinct tautological ideologies.

Just because it feels right does not mean it to be true.

My favorite rendition of his "My love wears forbidden colors"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4tLtg-DMb8

"The whole nature vs civilization narrative, is a story told by happy regressors, who want to return to a ilusionary before time"

Or maybe it is a bit more complex. And the story maybe begins with civilized people who explicitly wanted to conquer nature. To make it bow to mens will. And quite some still want to exactly this. They were the ones creating that artificial distinction.

The romanticism of nature that you are criticize, is more of a counter movement to that philosophy, that we are in fact part of nature and we have to find our balance within the greater cycles.

I see this even within ideas like “AI alignment”, make a machine that could potentially think, then smash it over the head with wokeness and values so we don’t destroy ourselves with it.

That’s also a story you tell yourself.

The reasoning would be, as civilization advances, things become more complex, to the point of us not even understanding the complexity. Same arguments applied to AI for example. With greater complexity, the potential for harm increases. As an historic example, can be seen with technology used in wars, that caused increased devastation to the point of a mutual destruction scenario.