The Authenticity of Nature: An Exploration of Lay People’s Interpretations in the Netherlands

Chapter 4The Authenticity of Nature: An Exploration ofLay People’s Interpretations in the Netherlands

Riyan J.G. van den Born and Wouter T. de Groot

4.1 Introduction

The human capacity to manipulate nature has increased dramatically over thelast decades. The slow development of farming, gardening and breeding has beenreplaced by a proliferation of techniques in genetic engineering, chemical regula-tion and ecosystem (re)construction. The resulting blurring of the simple distinctionbetween the human, the interactive and the natural domains has triggered societaldebate and philosophical reflection. If the artifacts and topsoils of an agriculturalarea are removed and natural species colonize the place neatly according to plan, isthat real nature? If an overactive child is sedated so as to facilitate the handling ofthe child, is that still the same child? If we manage a forest or a river so cleverlythat the most beautiful trees and the most fishable fish spontaneously dominate theecosystem, where then do we in fact walk and fish – in nature or in a pseudo zoo?

This chapter addresses issues such as the above from an empirical, socio-scientific point of view, and focuses on the level of individual lay people ratherthan on professional discourses or policies. Broadly put, our research aim has beento study how individual people engage in the conceptual and moral dilemmas posedby the blurring of boundaries between the human and the natural.

In view of our empirical objective, we have tried to define key concepts such asnature, naturalness and authenticity in ways that lie close enough to both the philo-sophical and the ‘folk’ notions. As a starting point, we refer to one of the surveysof our research group in which people were asked to indicate the perceived degreeof naturalness of certain instances of nature, such as ‘pigeons in the city square’, ‘amaize field’ or ‘the sea’. One of the items on that list was ‘giving birth to children’,and most respondents ranked that event as largely natural (Van den Born, Lenders,

R.J.G. van den Born (B)Department of Philosophy and Science Studies, Faculty of Sciences, Radboud Universityof Nijmegen, Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, Netherlandse-mail: [email protected]

47M. Drenthen et al. (eds.), New Visions of Nature,DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-2611-8_4, C© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

48 R.J.G van den Born and W.T. de Groot

De Groot, & Huijsman, 2001).1 This shows that respondents have in fact no diffi-culty with the idea of naturalness in humans; giving birth is a process where ‘naturetakes over’ and dominates our conscious deliberations. In other words, respondents’deep definition of nature refers to self-organization and spontaneity including thatof ourselves, even when in daily language the term nature usually refers loosely tothe green stuff ‘out there’. Thus we define:

• (degree of) naturalness = (degree of) being or happening without human inter-ference;

• nature = all patterns in space or events and processes in time that develop(ed)with a certain minimum degree of naturalness.

In this scheme, talking about the degree of naturalness of nature is conceptuallyunproblematic, even though the threshold for something to qualify as nature mayvary over persons or cultures, e.g., Europeans apply a lower threshold than Amer-icans tend to do. Things, patterns or events may be called nature or natural even ifco-determined by some degree of human decision-making. A maize field may beregarded as non-natural because it is not natural enough, while a 50-year old forest,though planned and planted through human decision-making, may be seen as hav-ing developed enough naturalness to be above the threshold and hence be regardedas nature, even acknowledging, as people usually do, that the tropical rainforest ismore natural.

This set of definitions lies close to those used by philosophers involved in theauthenticity debate, such as Elliot (1982) and Katz (1992). Elliot and Katz, forinstance, take that ‘natural’ means ‘unmodified by human activity’ and recognizethat degrees of naturalness exist along a spectrum. Our definitions also allow forElliot’s major argument that origin matters in the assessment of degree of natural-ness, or if something qualifies as nature or not. Moreover, the definitions followBrennan’s ‘useful notion’ (Katz, 1992, p. 90) that the natural is the spontaneous,including that of humans, with natural childbirth serving as an example, like in oursurvey. A point of difference here is that Katz focuses on what does or does not‘go beyond our biological and evolutionary capacities’, which would appear to callforth all kinds of ambiguities because making artifacts and doing science is obvi-ously within human evolutionary capacities, and would therefore qualify as natural.Our definition focuses on conscious deliberation, thus allowing behaviors such asrunning away from an explosion or jumping into a lake on a hot day to qualify asnatural without the need to refer to evolutionary capacities. Human presence in alandscape therefore does not subtract from a landscape’s naturalness if and insofaras these behaviors and their visible effects are those of humans behaving as ‘justanother species’ as De Groot (1992, p. 223) puts it in his assessment system ofintrinsic natural value.

1The Netherlands is one of the few countries where childbirth is still practiced as a non-medicalizedevent, preferably (and in most actual cases) taking place under the supervision of a midwife ratherthan a gynaecologist.

4 The Authenticity of Nature 49

Nature is organized on the basis of system levels, such as genes, organisms andecosystems. Degrees of naturalness may vary across system levels. A city park, forinstance, has a low degree of naturalness at the system level, but many organismsin it may have settled and developed fully on their own, i.e., be purely natural. Aswe will see in subsequent sections, respondents make this distinction as well. Thisdistinction is an analytical one, however. It therefore does not preclude substantiveinterdependence of system levels in naturalness assessment. One example is thechild reported in De Groot, Van den Born, and Lenders (2006, p. 9) who assertsthat a stone on the mountain is nature, but the same stone on the kitchen sink is notnature.

Earlier work of our group focused on visions of nature, viewed as the umbrellaconcept that encompasses (1) images of nature, (2) values of nature and (3) imagesof the human-nature relationship. Images of the human-nature relationship are con-ceptualized in terms of mastership over nature, stewardship of nature, partnershipwith nature and participation in nature. One of the findings, for instance, is thatmainstream people tend to feel part of nature and responsible for nature at the sametime (Van den Born, 2007). In order to provide a link with earlier work, images ofrelationship were included in the interviews.

As for the concept of authenticity, a few of our respondents seemed to hint at adifference with naturalness, e.g., when remarking that a forest may look natural butin fact, on some deeper level, it is not. This distinction did not come to fore in theanalysis, however, and neither did we find any philosophical reason to differentiatethe naturalness of nature from the authenticity of nature. We will use the two termsinterchangeably.

The paper is structured as follows. The next section will discuss the generalresearch approach, the research question and the research methods. Section 4.3presents the results, grouped by five different aspects. Section 4.4 provides a briefreflection. Overall, in keeping with the exploratory aim of the paper (see below),we will focus entirely on detailed empirical reporting, refraining from theoreticaldiscussions.

4.2 Approach and Method

Because the authenticity of nature has not received empirical attention in earlierstudies, this study aimed to be exploratory in both the methodological and the sub-stantive sense. Methodologically, we were sure of a few general principles, one ofwhich was that during previous studies, people appeared to respond much morefreely and elaborately to examples expressing the underlying philosophical aspectsthan to the issue itself: see for instance Van den Born (2008) on the intrinsic value ofnature. With respect to the interviews, however, many details needed to be explored,e.g., if the interview questions designed were sufficiently valid, coherent and eliciteddifferentiation between respondents. Our interviews did yield this kind of informa-tion, but since they are not of great interest to the outsider, we will not report onthem further.


In the substantive realm, our exploratory aim has had two consequences, relatedto the complexity of the examples discussed with the respondents and the choicebetween a qualitative or quantitative emphasis.

Subtle and intricately layered dilemmas are philosophically more challengingthan simple ones. This may be the reason why the concept of authenticity of natureis discussed by philosophers mainly in the context of nature restoration. We feltthat for a first exploration of the issue with lay people, less complex case materialwas required, so as to keep the cases conceptually manageable for the respondents(and for ourselves in the subsequent analysis). Therefore, the example dilemmas weused as discussion triggers represent relatively straightforward human interventionsin nature, e.g., transgenic apples, helping nature with artificial devices, or replac-ing native with exotic forest species. These cases have not been generated by anysophisticated theory, but by a simple 2 by 3 generative scheme that distinguishesbetween genetic and non-genetic intervention in nature and three degrees of inter-vention. The only directly theory-driven question in the interviews was the last one,in which people were asked for their preference regarding consequentionalist ver-sus non-consequentionalist ethics. In defense of this low level of sophistication,we argue that this is the way that grounded theory building proceeds (Strauss &Corbin, 1997).

Research could be initiated to pursue qualitative or quantitative questions. Quali-tative questions focus primarily on the nature (or: content) of phenomena, e.g., whatpeople think about authenticity or what they regard as nature. Quantitative questions,on the other hand, focus on distributions of phenomena, e.g., the degree to whicholder respondents differ from younger respondents in terms of an authenticity clas-sification. It is a persistent misunderstanding that qualitative questions have to beanswered by ‘qualitative methods’ (whatever that may mean) and quantitative ques-tions by ‘quantitative methods’ (idem). Methods such as interviews may well beused for both pursuits however, provided some minimum number is available. Like-wise, methods such as surveys may be used for both purposes too; a factor analysismay, for instance, result in conceptual typologies, which are a qualitative result. Vanden Born (2007) gives example. Our exploratory research design aimed to ‘get a bitof both’, that is to say, to allow a first grasp of both the contents of people’s con-ceptualizations and of the distributions of these contents. This led to a choice for 30interviews and a semi-structured interview design.

Against this background, our research question was: how do lay people, in asemi-structured interview setting and responding to a number of concrete examplesof human manipulation of nature, relate to the theme of authenticity (naturalness)of nature?

The subclause ‘in a semi-structured interview setting and responding to a numberof concrete examples of human manipulation of nature’ is not superfluous. It may beexpected that people respond contextually to these kind of issues, and the answersreceived in this particular research setting should not be taken as fixed in any othersetting, e.g., when the issue is mixed with specific backgrounds (as they often arein daily life or in the ballot box), or when people are asked to respond to a writtenquestionnaire or to different types of questions. For this reason, we pay detailedattention to the interview structure and wordings in this section.


The village of Beek, close to Nijmegen, was selected for the interviews. Beekis a quiet place. Its inhabitants are urban oriented, but it still has a character of itsown. The village is situated at the bottom of the steep and sandy slope that formsthe transition from the Nijmegen ‘plateau’ (some 40 m above sea level) to the flat,mainly agricultural Rhine floodplain that offers the usual Dutch landscape of grass-lands, arable land and great skies. We can assume that when respondents talk about‘the forest’, they have the sloping area in mind, which is a fine-grained mixture ofgrassland and forested areas with high historical and biodiversity value, dotted witha few old farm houses and many winding paths used mainly for recreation.

Thirty respondents were selected through snowball sampling. Starting with thefirst respondent, the snowball question was whether he or she knew anybody in Beekwho would also like to participate. Care was taken that, overall, men and womenwere represented sufficiently equally and that sufficiently equal age groups wererepresented between the ages of 18 and 60 years. The result was a gender divisionof 15 women and 15 men, and a representation of 14 and 16 in the age bracketsof 20–40 and 41–60, respectively. As far educational level was concerned, it turnedout that 16 respondents were educated at the higher level (higher vocational schoolsand university), nine respondents were educated at the medium level (medium voca-tional schools and secondary education) and five respondents at the lower level. Thisis slightly higher than the average in the Dutch population.

Box 4.1 lists the images of the human-nature relationship as phrased in the inter-views. Box 4.2 contains the wording of the examples of intervention in nature, andBox 4.3 summarizes the interview procedure.

Box 4.1 Images of Relationship as Worded in the Interviews

The four images of relationship were explained to the respondents in an arbi-trary order, starting however with Steward or Partner. The images of relation-ship were visualized in simple drawings.

• Master over natureAccording to the idea of Mastership, humans stand above nature. Humansare allowed to do with nature whatever they want. Economic growth andtechnology are expected to provide answers to problems that might crop up(for instance, environmental problems).

• Steward of natureThe Steward stands above nature and is responsible for the conservationof nature. Nature is not owned by the Steward, but entrusted to him. Thesteward owes responsibility to God or future generations.

• Partner with natureThe Partner stands side by side with nature. Humans and nature are consid-ered to be of equal value. Humans should work together with nature in theconviction that this interaction will benefit both.


• Participant in natureThe Participant is part of nature, not just biologically, but also on the spir-itual level. Although humans are a (small) part of nature, they are activeparticipants. For the Participant, the bond between self and nature is veryimportant; it co-constitutes the self.

After the scenarios of technological interventions in nature were pre-sented to the respondents, the question on images of relationship was askedagain but textually adjusted to also capture the role of technology in thehuman-nature relationship.

According to the idea of Mastership, there are no obstacles to techno-logical interventions in nature. After all, humans stand above nature andare allowed to do with nature whatever they want. If people benefit fromthe intervention, the intervention is a good thing.

According to the idea of Stewardship, technological interventions areonly permitted within certain boundaries and in a responsible manner.Nature should not suffer extensive or irreversible damage.

According to the idea of Partnership, technological interventions areallowed only in case both humans and nature benefit.

According to the idea of Participation, extensive technological interven-tions in nature are not allowed. After all, the bond we feel with nature is abond with something that is truly different from us, not with something wemade ourselves.

Box 4.2 The Two Series of Instances of Non-genetic and Genetic Manipulationof Nature in Different Degrees as Worded in the Interviews

NON-GENETIC GENETIC

Exotic trees:We can replace certain elements ofnature because they are sick or becausewe think it is more beautiful. Forinstance, we may cut all old trees in aforest and replace them by healthy exotictrees.

Plastic ponds:We can build synthetic ponds in theforest that can clear the water and areable to better retain the water.

Plastic forest:We can make a totally plastic forest thatneeds no maintenance and is notsusceptible to any kind of disease, but itsmells just like a real forest and theleaves fall in winter just as usual.

Genetic apple:We can change the genetic structure of an applein such a way that it contains more vitamins.

Genetic tree:We can change the genetic structure of a tree insuch a way that the leaves will fall twice a year. Inthat way more light will reach the forest floor andmuch more varied undergrowth will establishitself.

Genetic forest:We can replace an entire forest by trees, plantsand animals with genetic adaptations. The treescan open their foliage when the sun shines andclose it when it rains, like natural roof. Flowersemanate a soft light during the night. The birdshave tropical colors, they sing all day long andthey are not shy.


Box 4.3 The Structure of the Interviews

Part 1: Images of Nature and Images of Relationship

– What is nature according to you? Or: what would be your definition ofnature?

– I want to ask you what you think the relationship between humans andnature should be. I will present four different images of relationshipbetween humans and nature and I would like to discuss all four with you.Remember, this is about your opinion. [The images of relationship, see Box4.1., were discussed.]

– What is your opinion on this?[Subsequently different, more specific questions per image of rela-tionship were asked, for instance:]

– Do you think humans and nature are of equal value? (partner)– Do you think humans are responsible for nature? (steward)– What do you think about the idea that nature basically is an eco-

nomic good? (master)– Out of these four images, what image fits your ideas on the

human/nature relationship best? [Respondents were left free toexpress their own preferred relationship if they wished.] And why?

Part 2: Technological Interventions in Nature

Now, I would like to discuss the role of technology with you. We can hardlyimagine our lives without a vacuum cleaner, a television or a mobile phone.Technological developments go beyond this, however, and humans increas-ingly intervene in nature. I would like to talk about this topic with you. I willpresent a number of examples in which humans intervene in nature by meansof technology.

2A Physical Interventions in Nature (see Box 4.2)

[The examples A to C were presented in arbitrary order, and the followingquestions were discussed for each]

– What is your opinion on this? why?– Do you think it is right or not? why?– Do you think this is allowable or not? why?– Do you think this is natural or not? why?

[Finally, for the examples jointly:]Please order the cards from what you consider the least natural to what

you consider the most natural.


2B: Genetic Interventions in Nature (see Box 4.3)

Besides replacing certain elements in nature by others, we can also changecertain elements genetically. All these characteristics are hereditary and willtherefore be transferred to the next generations.

[Examples A to C were presented in arbitrary order, and the followingquestions were discussed for each]

– What is your opinion on this? why?– Do you think it is right or not? why?– Do you think this is allowable or not? why?– Do you think this is natural or not? why?

[Finally, for all examples:]Please order the cards from what you consider the least natural to what

you consider the most natural.

2C. Images of Technology

Technology plays a role in all the examples above. How do you see the roleof technology? I will present three possible visions on technology:

• Technology as liberator: this is an optimistic vision: science and technologyhave brought us prosperity and will continue to do that. When problemsarise, we can solve them by further improving technology.

• Technology as threat: this is a pessimistic vision: the increasing applicationof technology is a self-reinforcing process, out of human control. Accord-ing to this idea, humans and nature are victims of technological develop-ment.

• Technology as neutral: According to this image, technology itself is neutral;technology itself does not lead to something good or something bad; it isthe way in which humans use technology and the objects they strive for.

Which image appeals to you most? Why?

2D. Images of Nature

Now, I would like to know what, in this context, is your opinion on theresponse of nature to human interventions.

[The following images were shown as drawings and worded as follows:]

– Nature indifferentNature is basically indifferent towards the influences of humans.Although human influences will have a major effect on nature, theecosystem will always find a new balance.

– Nature buffered


Humans take influence on nature within certain boundaries; however,this will not bring nature out of balance. Nature will lose its bal-ance, however, if these boundaries are crossed, and the ecosystem willbe lost.

– Nature unstableNature is very vulnerable and will be substantially harmed by any humanintervention.

– Nature stableNature is very strong en will always be able to stay healthy, whateverhumans do.

Which image appeals to you most? Why?

2E. Images of Relationship - Repeated

When we look again at the four images of relationship at this point, we cantry to give the role of technology a place in them.

[explanation of technology in the four images, see Box 4.1]

– Which image appeals to you most? Why?– Or would you describe the role of technology in the human/nature relation-

ship in a different way?

Part 3: Technological Interventions in the Human Body

Not reported here

Part 4: Ethics

I would like to know how you think society should deal with technology.I will present two positions and ask you to give a reaction on both. Let’sassume that technology is always serving an objective. For instance, bet-ter health, or more better comfort or happiness for more people. The twopositions are:

1. What is allowed or not allowed fully depends on that objective.2. What is allowed or not allowed is not dependent on human wishes. When

something is bad, it is always bad, independent of the outcome.

– What is your reaction to these positions?– How do you think society should deal with technology?

Part 5: Socio-Demographic Information

Gender, level of education, occupation, age, marital status, children, religion.


4.3 Results

4.3.1 Images of Relationship

In the interviews, respondents were asked to give a first reaction to each image.Then, they could choose which image best fitted their idea of how humans shouldrelate to nature. In line with previous research (Van den Born, 2007), respondentshad strongly ecocentric inclinations. Mastership over nature was rejected by allrespondents. Stewardship of nature was regarded as positive because of the ideathat humans have a responsibility to take care of nature and that humans shouldbe accountable to future generations. The idea of humans and nature being ofequal value was endorsed by some of the respondents. However, the majority ofthe respondents thought that a partnership with nature is unattainable, for instancebecause humans cannot help but to dominate nature. Most people were convincedthat humans are part of nature, but in a biological rather than a spiritual sense (asthe Participant image was originally intended). In their final choice (but before dis-cussing the interventions in nature), seven respondents preferred this image of bio-logical participation in nature. Five respondents preferred steward of nature, andfour respondents chose partnership with nature as the image most representative oftheir feelings. A combination of biological participant and steward was preferred bysix respondents. The others preferred other combinations.

After discussing the example interventions in nature, the interview returned tothe images of relationship. Technology was given a place in the different images,and the respondents were requested to state what image of relationship fitted bestwith their ideas at this point. Twelve respondents stuck to the image they chose orig-inally. Most others moved from an emphasis of being (biologically) part of natureto images of stewardship of nature (ten respondents), partnership with nature (tenrespondents) or a combination thereof (six respondents). Respondents explained thisshift by the importance of maintaining a balance between humans and nature anda feeling that stewardship and partnership express this idea best. We are allowed touse technology, but without damaging nature. This was worded, for instance, as:

‘Let’s try to keep it within certain boundaries’.‘In the stewardship model, you can interfere in nature, but there are certain limits’.‘The steward should take care of nature, and I think that this is the present situation’.

The dynamics of this reasoning becomes visible in the following quotes:The respondent chooses the combination of steward and partner

Q: At first you chose partner and participant, why did you change your opinion?A: ‘Because we are talking about technology now, then you have to make a choice

about the level of interference [in nature]. I think that this makes quite a dif-ference’.

Q: And you choose this because of the boundaries?A: ‘Yes, here we have to take nature into account. When we were not talking

about technology, like before [in the interview], the image is that nature is


quite powerful and humans are just a small part. But with technology includedin the picture, we see ourselves as much more powerful and then we have toconsider limits. I think nature is vulnerable in that context.’

And:

‘Yes, I find it a bit difficult. . . At first I endorsed the participant image, in which humans arepart of nature. In that case, however, technological interventions are not allowed, and that isa consequence that I would not accept. I wouldn’t agree to that. No, humans [are allowed tointervene but] should be aware of the impacts thereof. So, I tend to the partner image. Weshould realise what the consequences are, and that there may be disadvantages.’

Overall, it appears that many respondents first choose the image of humans as(biological) part of nature, but then begin to realize that this notion does not offermuch guidance for the intervention-in-nature issues, contrary to the stewardshipand partner images, where setting boundaries, ensuring protection, preserving theharmony and suchlike responses are easier to conceptualize.

4.3.2 Responses to the Example Series

4.3.2.1 The Example Series of Physical Interventions in Nature

People were asked to respond to examples of planting exotic trees in the forest,constructing artificial ponds in the forest and replacing trees with plastic ones thatlook and behave ‘just as usual’ (see Box 4.2).

Responses to the artificial ponds issue were quite nuanced. Approximately halfof the respondents thought this was a good idea, the other half not. Those positiveabout the artificial pond were so primarily because the intervention appeared tobe meant to support forest ecology. Some respondents expressly asked if this wasindeed the objective. A typical response then was:

‘OK, you help the forest with this. We do too much to the forest already, such as acid rain.(. . .) But I would not agree to this if it would be needed everywhere [for all trees]’.

The latter remark suggests that the intervention would be acceptable only as ameasure limited in space and time. Irrespective of their final response, most respon-dents hesitate at first, weigh the pros and cons, and wonder whether this interventionis really necessary:

‘If it is necessary for the conservation of the forest, I would say yes, but on the other hand,we should ask ourselves how this all came about’.

Responses also depended on the degree to which the artificial ponds would beintegrated in the ecosystem. Some respondents associated this explicitly to the vis-ibility of the pond bottom and walls; if these would be completely underground, itwould be less unnatural.


Reasons for being against the construction of artificial ponds were that this inter-vention was too intrusive, was unnatural, and above all that nature could do this onits own:

‘I have faith in the purification process of nature itself, we do not have to interfere’.

The same nuances appeared when respondents were asked whether this interven-tion was allowable. Three different groups could be distinguished. Two equisizedminorities were either in favor of allowing this intervention or they were opposed toit. But the largest group thought that the artificial ponds were allowable only in caseof an emergency or some other urgent reason. One respondent asserts:

‘I will not shout for joy, but I can imagine some conditions under which we say, well, let’sdo it as a temporary measure.’

As regards the replacement of all old trees by healthy exotic ones, virtually allrespondents found this to be a bad idea and unnatural, but this opposition did notappear to run very deep. The resistance was mainly associated with the idea that thereplacement does not serve any serious objective. It might possibly, as a few respon-dents remarked, add some attractive elements to the forest, but it does not ‘help theforest’ in any way. More than half of the respondents opined that the replacementof old indigenous trees by healthy exotic ones constitutes an interference with basicecological processes, saying, for instance, that ‘a dead tree that falls triggers a bio-logical process that is good [for the forest]’ and ‘dead trees belong to the ecosystem;(. . .) if you make everything healthy, you disturb the system’. Unnaturalness was themajor reason to reject the replacement by exotic species:

‘[These trees] just don’t belong here. Leave them in the countries where they come from’.‘There is a reason why these [Indigenous trees] grow here’.‘If you talk about nature, you talk about something that should go its own way. Plantingexotics causes a certain disharmony in nature.’

This disharmony could, as some respondents remarked, also bring other risks,especially of pests. And finally, some respondents point to globalization trends, say-ing that if you plant exotic trees, ‘the whole world would become the same’, and‘what would be for the use of going on a holiday?’ The global level is also invokedwhen people reflect about major ecological changes that could occur due to globalwarming, with one respondent adding ‘So, why bother [about exotic species] if indue course they will arrive anyway?’

Discussing the naturalness aspect of the replacement of old trees by exotic ones,some respondents focused on the consequences for the forest, while others lookedmore at the act of replacement itself. Most respondents were of the opinion that boththe forest and the intervention were unnatural. Some respondents, however, foundthe intervention to be artificial but added that the forest would still be natural.

The image of a forest with totally plastic trees was met with unanimous and fierceresistance. It was considered ‘a scary idea’, ‘horrible’, and something that ‘does nothave anything to do with nature’, something ‘fake’. For some, this would be a placethat would have lost all its spiritual connections, where nothing unexpected wouldhappen and no animals would find a home. Some people had associations with an


amusement park: ‘This may be nice in an amusement park, but not in nature’, andone respondent said ‘I don’t see the point of it. Do this in Second Life’. One conver-sation started out by the respondent first inventing a purely functionalist rejectionand then revealing the underlying emotions:

A: ‘[I reject this because] I think the most important function of a tree is that itproduces oxygen, and plastic cannot do that’.

Q: Let’s imagine that that the plastic leaves would be able to produce oxygen too.A: ‘No, that’s no good at all; it is not nature anymore’.Q: Could it yet be acceptable?A: ‘No, it is just a feeling. Nature must be real’.

The same unanimous rejection was found with respect to the permissibility andnaturalness of this intervention. Overall, respondents stated that a plastic forest isnot permissible and it would be absolutely unnatural:

‘Nature must be real’‘It is not alive, so it is not natural’‘It is completely artificial and made by humans, there is nothing organic about it, there isnothing alive in it (. . .), so no, it is not natural’.

4.3.2.2 The Example Series of Genetic Interventions in Nature

As regards the example of the genetically modified apple that would contain morevitamins, many respondents rejected this outright because no serious purpose wouldbe served by such an intervention. Some of these respondents also pointed to unfore-seen consequences, e.g.

‘[This may] endanger the whole ecosystem. In my view, we often do not oversee these kindof things’.‘You start out with a few vitamins but where . . . I mean, do you put some diseases in it too?This could have all kinds of unforeseen implications, and our food would be come a lot lessreliable’.

Some respondents (mostly men) saw no real problem with a genetically modifiedapple, especially if normal apples would remain on the market, so that consumerswould have a choice. These respondents did not discuss the purpose of the interven-tion and saw no real disadvantages, e.g., because ‘nature does not suffer’ or becauseapples still grow naturally (spontaneously) on trees.

Despite the overall rejection of genetically modified apples, not all respondentsfollowed the same line of reasoning when it came to the question of allowability.More than half of the respondents thought that it was unnecessary to prohibit thiskind of intervention.

‘I think that [modifying apples] is unnecessary, but saying it would be ‘unallowable’ is toomuch’.‘Yes, for me it is allowable, because there will not be much damage to non-modified apples’.


The responses to the genetically modified trees that shed their leaves twice ayear so that the forest will have more abundant undergrowth (see Box 4.3) weremore negative, overall. Several respondents rejected the idea without reference toobjectives or effects. This non-consequentialist focus on the act itself was oftenworded in terms of ‘too deep’ or ‘too far’. For instance:

‘I think that people should not interfere so deeply into nature. No, just leave nature in peacethis time, its OK as it is. (. . .) Just don’t start doing this kind of thing’. ‘You are changingthings too much. It goes too far.’

Some respondents connected this stance to their position on modified apples.What is permissible for production-oriented systems such as apple orchards maynot be permissible for a forest that is supposed to be more natural.

Within the group that did refer to goals and effects, many respondents found thegoals to be too frivolous to justify the intervention:

‘Why would we do this? To make the forest yet more beautiful?’‘This is only for human pleasure’.

With respect to the effects, unintended risks were mentioned several times,e.g., that the whole ecosystem would change in many unpredictable ways, or even‘destroy itself’. Of the few respondents that were not opposed, one said:

‘I have no problem with this, if it does no harm anywhere and has only positive effects’.

The majority of the respondents think that the modified trees are no longernatural. One respondent made a remark on the cultural dynamics of evaluations,saying that:

‘I think this [rejection] will be shared by all in the beginning. But if it had been like this forfifty years, people would regard it as natural’.

As regards the example of the totally manipulated forest with the colorful birdsand light-emitting flowers (see Box 4.3), radical rejections prevailed.

‘Welcome to Disney World!’‘Absurd’.‘Humans have too much influence on life and nature. [Such a forest] has nothing to do withnature’.‘It is totally fake’.

Yet for many, this rejection remained intermingled with objectives and effects. Itwill all be very ‘dull and boring’, ‘giving no pleasure’, and:

‘This has nothing to do with health or something [essential] like that. It is purely human[pleasure]’.‘This serves no purpose. I do not mind getting wet from time to time.’

Respondents here mentioned all sorts of experiences in nature they did not wantto have to do without, for instance:

‘When it storms, when it is very windy or when it snows, it is attractive to go for walks inthe forest, and you would miss that kind of thing immediately’.‘Nature is beautiful enough, I don’t need luminous flowers’.


‘If I walk through the forest I need to smell the forest (. . .) I need to feel it, I want to stumbleover dead wood’.

Finally, some respondents did not mind if such manipulated forests would existin some places, like in Disneyland or in office buildings. They simply would not gothere. ‘It would not feel good.’

4.3.3 Images of Nature and Technology

After discussing the scenarios of physical and genetic intervention in nature, respon-dents were asked about their view on nature and on technology.

4.3.3.1 Balances of Nature

Out of the four categories of responses of nature to human interventions, only onewas actually endorsed. No one adhered to the image in which nature is unstableand harmed by any human intervention; only one respondent supported the ideathat nature is stable and will always stay healthy, whatever humans do; and againone respondent thought nature to be indifferent, that nature will probably change byhuman influences, but ecosystems will always find a new balance. All other respon-dents choose the image that nature is buffered. They believe that humans influencenature within certain boundaries. This will, however, not bring nature out of bal-ance. Nature will lose its balance if these boundaries are crossed, and the ecosystemwill be lost.

The respondents expressed two versions of this image. Approximately half ofthis group of respondents adhere to the image of nature buffered as explained above.These respondents feel that nature is flexible and rather strong, but once we cross aline it may be too late.

‘Nature will always adapt and recover itself, but I think that there could be a moment whenwe cross a limit, for instance in the case of the global warming’.

The other half constructs a new image in which nature is buffered, but indiffer-ent in the long term. Because they are convinced that when humans cross certainboundaries and an ecosystem is destroyed, nature will find a new balance in time.

‘We can change [nature], but it has millions of years to recover and that is what wouldhappen in my opinion.’‘On the one hand, we can assume that nature can handle a lot and that it is normal thatecosystems change, that species diminish and increase etcetera. But on the other hand, Iobserve that in the short term, we could have such a big influence on nature that it will notbe flexible enough to cope’.

4.3.3.2 Images of Technology

When confronted with the question whether technology is a threat, a liberator orneutral, the majority of the respondents (n= 22) initially chose the ‘neutral’ option.


They believed that technology itself does not lead to something good or somethingbad. Whether it is good or bad is determined by the way in which humans usetechnology. Respondents say, for instance:

‘Technology as such is not bad or good. What matters is the kind of technology we developand how we use it’.‘You can use it for good things and also for bad things.’‘Humans are the ones who are always behind it. Humans are the ones who deal with it, whodevelop it, so humans are the ones who do it. That is a clear story, technology itself cannotdo it.’

Five respondents, mostly men, initially thought technology to be a liberator.Three of them, however, use arguments in which technology is actually neutral,saying, for instance, ‘I see [technology] as a liberator, if only used in the right way.’Another respondent asserted that technology has brought us very far, but continuedby saying that it becomes harmful on the scale that people use it, without thinkingabout the consequences. The other two respondents opted for technology as lib-erator because that would be the ideal situation: ‘We have to make the step fromtechnology being neutral to technology as being a liberator’.

What characterizes these responses is the underlying idea that technology itselfhas to be distinguished from human design and the use of technology. This alsoholds for the few respondents that see nature as a threat in their first response: ‘It isnot a liberator, but rather a threat, and this is just how people use it’. This idea alsounderlies people’s examples of technology going awry, e.g., when they say that:

‘Well, Chernobyl is a good example of how technology can go totally awry. That is a realthreat. But genetically modifying an apple can be liberating.’‘If we look back in history, it is easy to see how technology can cause prosperity as well asdisasters (. . .) so, there are enough examples to see technology both as a liberator and as athreat.’

Some respondents started to have doubts about this basic scheme. They typicallydid so during further reflection after their first response. Here is an example:

‘Indeed, humans make the choice for more, bigger and higher. This is not an inherent aspectof technology itself. You can also say ‘I won’t have any part in it’. So, I tend to . . . So, Iam somewhere between ‘neutral’ and ‘threat’, because technology overwhelms us a bitsometimes, I think.’

Other examples are:

‘Technology should not begin to take control over humans. I am afraid that that is what ishappening to some extent.’‘It may happen, at a certain moment, that most people on the planet actually have no ideahow far technology has progressed, and what consequences this will have.’‘[Technological development] has gone much too far already, and we cannot change thatanymore’.

We surmise that the dominant conceptualization of technology as an intrinsicallyneutral thing that can be used for good and bad, is deeply rooted in the responsesbecause this is what technology has long been in human history and still largely is inpeople’s daily lives. It is like the hammer that may be used either to hit a nail or hit


somebody on the head, or like the gun that one may or may not decide to buy. It isonly after considerable reflection that respondents come to glimpse something of themuch more abstract and larger-scale notion of the economic/technology system thatdrives human development as a largely blind force that society has great difficultiescontrolling at all.

4.3.4 Ethics

The final question of the interview explored the distinction between a consequential-ist, functionalistic approach to the issue (phrased in the interview as ‘What is accept-able depends on the goals’) versus a non-consequentialist, deontic stance (‘Somethings are good or bad irrespective of the outcome’). This question was included toallow what is sometimes called the ‘yuk!’ response to genetic manipulation (Midg-ley, 2004), expressing that some of those manipulations are inherently wrong evenif they may serve a good purpose.

The non-consequentionalist point of view was not supported by any of therespondents. Virtually all expressed adherence to the idea that objectives and out-comes in terms of those objectives are the keys to ethical decisions on technol-ogy application. This is not to say, however, that non-consequentionalist reasoningwas absent in the interviews as a whole. Often, as we saw, respondents tended tofocus on the (un)naturalness of interventions themselves rather than on their effects,e.g., on the forest. In some rarer cases, respondents started out explicitly by reason-ing from a non-consequentialist standpoint and then rationalizing their ideas in aconsequentionalist direction. Responding to the example of the genetically manipu-lated apple, one respondent expressed this line of thought as follows:

‘This is a difficult question. It requires real thinking. In principle, I am against all geneticmanipulation. One should leave nature as it is. But if you could genetically change thingsonce so that nature does not suffer and it has certain advantages, then I can imagine [thatit could be acceptable]. But where the boundaries are is very difficult to determine. In thecase of the apple and the vitamins, if there would be no disadvantages . . . (. . .). I would notbe interested in it, but I don’t think I would have a real problem with it.’

In other words, even though respondents often displayed elements of deontic rea-soning, they declared themselves thoroughly consequentialist if forced to make anexplicit choice. This does not lead to narrow utilitarianism, however, as the inter-views show in abundance. Consequences are considered for society as a whole, fornatural elements such as forest animals and for the authenticity of the natural sys-tems, just to mention some salient examples.

Two major concepts appear to stand out in the responses, one hinging on thenotion of (broad) utility and one on authenticity as the key idea. Utility is expressedin terms of cost, benefits and risks, either separately (e.g., ‘harm to other organisms’,‘maintaining a healthy forest’, ‘dangerous for the ecosystem’, ‘long-term conse-quences’, ‘unforeseeable effects’ or ‘risk assessment’) or in combination, e.g., ‘whatit costs and what it delivers’, or ‘no harm and good benefits’. This concept allows for


a rejection of discussed cases due to a negative balance of cost and benefits, but alsodue to what may be called frivolousness of purpose, such as when respondents saythat something is ‘merely for human pleasure’, ‘just for fun’, ‘superfluous’, ‘unnec-essary’, ‘not serving any serious purpose’ and so on. The concept of authenticityis expressed in wordings such as that things should be ‘natural’, that nature shouldbe ‘real nature’ and that ecosystem elements should ‘belong together’. This con-cept allows for a rejection of discussed cases due to what could be called overlyintrusive human intervention in nature, e.g., when respondents talk about ‘too deephuman intervention’ or that something ‘goes too far’ or is ‘forced upon nature’. Notethat both the rejection because of frivolous purpose and because of overly intrusiveintervention represent essentially non-consequentialist ethics.

Utility and authenticity may be combined to form a scheme of three ethicaldomains: one domain where intervention tends to be rejected for reasons of frivolouspurpose, another domain where interventions tend to be rejected because of unac-ceptable loss of authenticity (‘overly intrusive’, ‘too far’), and a third domain ormiddle ground that allows for trade-offs and balance-seeking.

4.3.5 Dimensions of Authenticity

In the responses, authenticity was sometimes conceptualized as a purely subjectivenotion, as if naturalness were only a mental construct. This was especially mani-fest in the case of the plastic pond, which respondents could often imagine as fullyhidden in the ground. The respondents sometimes remarked: ‘[Whether or not this isnatural] depends on whether or not you see it as such [?]’. Likewise, the geneticallyengineered apple was sometimes considered natural because it still looked like anapple. Another hint at subjectivist interpretations was when people sometimes notedthat what may be seen as unnatural at any given time may not be seen as such infifty years or so, when everybody has gotten used to it.

Another and very different minority stance on authenticity could be referred toas pure conservatism. Nature is natural if it is what it has always been, e.g., whenrespondents asserted that natural something if it is the same ‘as it has been all thoseyears’ or that certain species are unnatural because ‘they have never been here’, orthat ‘it has always been this way, and that’s how it should stay’.

The mainstream interpretation of authenticity, however, appeared to unfold alongtwo major dimensions.

(1) The first dimension is authenticity as spontaneity, the self-organization of natureindependent of human deliberations (management, interventions). This dimen-sion of authenticity is expressed by respondents in wordings such as ‘what goesits own way’ or ‘what develops by itself’ and the reverse in wordings such as‘exists for a [human] purpose’, or ‘has been designed’, or is the result of humanplanting, digging, chemical engineering, genetic manipulation and so on.

(2) The second dimension is authenticity as belonging, i.e., as the fitting of a thing(a species, a forest, a water flow, a rhythm) in a greater context such as the


greater landscape, the climate or long-term processes of change. This dimensionis expressed by respondents in terms of apples fitting the tree, of tree speciesfitting the local combination of soil and climate, of plastic not belonging innature, of leaves falling out of season, and so on.

In terms of these dimensions, straightforwardly authentic is anything that is bothspontaneous and fitting in the larger whole. Ambiguities creep in when the dimen-sions lead to contradictory evaluations, for instance when trees are planted (lowspontaneity) and are indigenous species (high belonging) at the same time. Thesame pattern is visible in discussions about the reintroduction of species such as thebeaver or the sea eagle in the Netherlands. Both belong to our ecosystems and bothcould probably maintain themselves well once settled, now that hunting and toxicpressures have been reduced. Should we now wait until they arrive spontaneously,or help them by flying in a ‘seed population’? A reverse ambiguity presents itselfwith respect to invasive species. They may arrive spontaneously, but do not belongto the system – or do they, if they manage to maintain themselves?

4.4 Reflection

The interviews reported here have been designed in a ‘grounded theory’ manner,i.e., on the basis of philosophical intuitions rather than an extensive analysis ofthe philosophical literature. The freedom thus created for respondents to expresstheir views in their own way, has obvious advantages, e.g., in terms of validity ofthe answers and the richness of concepts. It is quite possible, for instance, that the‘belonging’ dimension of the authenticity of nature would not have come up withoutthis freedom. System levels in time (processes) and space (ecosystems) are a centralelement in this dimension, and system level thinking is, by and large, not a philoso-pher’s thing, tending as philosophy does to talk in more fundamental concepts suchas ‘nature’ as a whole or ‘domination’ as an outright bad.

The results reported in the preceding section will, we hope, link up with thephilosophical literature in a large variety of ways. We have not begun to explorethese avenues here, however, because we feel that at this moment in time, this wouldonly create a heavy-handed analysis and critique that would obfuscate the empiricalfindings.

We will therefore only put our results in a more general policy context here. Thenaturalness of nature is only one of the criteria by which effects on the intrinsic valueof nature are evaluated. In fact, conservation policies are predominantly focused on(bio)diversity rather than naturalness. The naturalness criterion is essential in orderto avoid ‘fake’, ‘zoo’ and many other unnatural ways to preserve genetic resources,species and ecosystems, but not the only one. In the policy-oriented assessmentsystem of effects on intrinsic natural value proposed in De Groot (1992, p. 223),naturalness is evaluated alongside with diversity. The diversity element is madeoperational through generic criteria such as species and ecosystem richness, endan-geredness and encounterability. The naturalness element includes natural human


action, an abiotic/biotic system level distinction and a contextual (place-dependent)assessment through a dynamic reference image, defined as ‘the story of the place’snatural development’. Much of what we have heard respondents say in this paper,as well as some of the postmodern ‘bioregional narrative’ (Cheney, 1989) may finda place here.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Eva Kollee for conducting the interviews, andSjoerd Reutelingsperger for the transcription of the interviews.

References

Cheney, J. (1989). Postmodern environmental ethics. Ethics as bioregional narrative. Environmen-tal Ethics, 11(2), 117–134.

Elliot, R. (1982). Faking nature. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy and the SocialSciences, 28 (10), 81–93.

De Groot, W. T. (1992). Environmental science theory: Concepts and methods in a problem-oriented, one-world paradigm. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishing.

De Groot, W. T., Van den Born, R. J. G., & Lenders, R. H. J. (2006). Visions of nature. An intro-duction. In: R. J. G. Van den Born, R. H. J. Lenders, & W. T. De Groot (Eds.), Visions ofnature. A scientific exploration of people’s implicit philosophies regarding nature in Germany,the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (pp. 7–18). Berlin: LIT-Verlag.

Katz, E. (1992). The big lie: The human restoration of nature. Research in Philosophy and Tech-nology, 12, 231–241.

Midgley, M. (2004). The myths we live by. London, New York: Routledge.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (Eds.). (1997). Grounded theory in practice(p. 280). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.Van den Born, R. J. G., Lenders, R. H. J., De Groot, W. T., & Huijsman, E. (2001). The New Bio-

philia: An exploration of visions of nature in Western countries. Environmental Conservation,28(1), 65–75.

Van den Born, R. J. G. (2007). Thinking nature. Everyday philosophy of nature in the Netherlands.Dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.

Van den Born, R. J. G. (2008). Rethinking nature: Public visions in the Netherlands. EnvironmentalValues, 17 (1), 83–109.

The Authenticity of Nature: An Exploration of Lay People’s Interpretations in the Netherlands

Documents

Transcript of The Authenticity of Nature: An Exploration of Lay People’s Interpretations in the Netherlands