Beyond William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis: The Third Nature

1 Beyond William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis: The Third Nature Elizabeth Ulanova Planning and the Invention of the Region: Reading Response Paper #2 June 2023 Word Count: 1022 2 William Cronon, a renowned environmental historian, elucidates in his 1992 book Nature's Metropolis the contrasting characteristics and circumstances of the surges of humans’ impact on our physical realm by classifying the context into separate waves of ‘nature’. In brief, Cronon contextualizes the difference between the ‘first’ and ‘second’ wave of nature within the definition of “the Hegelian and Marxist terms ‘first nature’ (original, prehuman nature) and ‘second nature’ (the artificial nature that people erect atop first nature)” (Cronon, 1992, p.17). In other words, Cronon states that the defining factor distinguishing the two is the human condition that leaves a tangible mark on the natural world. Put differently, the first nature can be regarded as the ‘natural’ environment predating human intervention, while the second nature represents the contemporary state wherein human attributes overlay upon the original natural realm. The latter is explained further that the setting of this specific “kind of second nature” is one that is “designed by people and ‘improved’ toward human ends” (Cronon, 1992, p.99). In other terms, human-centered design primarily focuses on enhancing the well-being and welfare of humanity within our planet, rather than encompassing the overall enhancement of the entire ecological system for all living beings. Yet, the impact of humans’ alternation of the planet for our own purposes of self-sustenance may not be that simple. The disagreement is not within the human condition that separates the different waves of nature, but rather that the current environment of our planet may be entering a third nature altogether. Therefore, if a ‘second nature’ is one of the natural world modified through human-led interventions, then a ‘third nature’ would be of a world that would be wrecked and uninhabitable due to human-led interventions. Therefore, Cronon's observation about the differentiation between various developmental contexts of the natural environment based on human 3 involvement is not inaccurate. However, it is possible that his perspective may be outdated in light of the present dire extent of human interventions, which pose a significant threat to the survival of the natural environment of planet Earth altogether. If we were to examine the development of the natural world within the simultaneous time frame of the development of our modern human species, specifically, Homo sapiens, then we would be viewing a timeline of approximately 300,000 years, the time of the first existing homo sapiens to emerge out of East Africa (Schuster, 1997). Moreover, if we were to take a look even further into the history of all human species, not including our own, then we would be viewing a timeline of over 2 million years such as Homo habilis and Homo erectus (Schuster, 1997). In other words, Cronon’s ‘first nature’, a nature without any human involvement, would have to be that of a pristine environment without even the moderate modification of the planet for human needs. In that case, far before the dangerous pollutions created by modern humans, say when our ancestors picked a ripe fruit from a tree for sustenance, that would be the beginning of human intervention of the natural environment. Put differently, even if the picking of that one fruit created no irreversible harm to the environment, an intervention did indeed take place. Understandably, in this example, the intervention was not exactly one of a predetermined, calculative design to be imprinted negatively onto the environment for the exclusive benefits of humans, it illustrates the important factor of modification. Clearly, within the context of the development of human civilization, the scale and impacts of human-led modification on the natural world have far exceeded the aforementioned example from our ancestors. From the invention of large-scale 4 agricultural farming to the concrete megalopolises of our modern city centers, the creations of canals and dams, to the paving of highways and roads, the human-created designs, imprinted for our selfish desires alone of a more convenient existence, have indisputably created large scale negative impacts on planet Earth. In brief, this would be by no means limited to the dormant soils of once nutrient-rich earth due to subsistent farming, the destruction of our marine ecosystems from arduous overfishing to the chemical pollutants found within every scale of our existing habitable land. Yet, perhaps the most important distinction of human-led modification, is the wave in which human-led designs would create an irreversible, and permanent modification to the natural environment that would make it inhabitable to not just Homo sapiens, but all life in our natural world. Therefore, the key distinction between ‘second nature’ and ‘third nature’ would be that the former would be of the physical world touched by human intervention, and the latter as that of the physical world modified to the extent of irreversible damage of extreme human-led modifications. Given the presence of contemporary nuclear reactors and weapons, the alarming pollution of our oceans and non-biodegradable plastic-ridden lands, the extent of modifications has surpassed that of nature. We find ourselves in an era marked by the escalating accumulation of our own artificially created elements. Most significantly, it is an era where the concept of "nature," referring to the existing physical environment, may struggle to withstand the mounting impacts caused by the harmful byproducts of this "third nature" on our planet. Could it still be classified as ‘nature’, if this is the age of the mass-produced artificial products that are naturally indissolvable? In this scenario, since the aforementioned 5 products originate from what Cronon refers to as "the raw materials of first nature," we find ourselves not in the realm of the artificial but rather arguably, in the 'third' wave (Cronon, 1992, p.227). Cronon's perspective on the waves of 'first' and 'second' nature, distinguished by human intervention, is not incorrect. However, it is outdated in the face of humanity's impact on the physical environment, which has surpassed mere modification and reached an extreme state of likely irreversible damage. Therefore, to address our true impact on the physical environment, we must accept responsibility and acknowledge that we are already entrenched in the 'third nature' of our world. Continual failure to address the crises resulting from our past imprints will leave us without any 'nature' to partake in or return to. BIBLIOGRAPHY Cronon, W. (1992). Nature’s metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. W. W. Norton. Mammal Species of the World—Browse: Sapiens. (n.d.). Retrieved June 28, 2023, from http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/browse.asp? id=12100795 Schuster. (1997). Earliest Remains of Genus Homo—Archaeology Magazine Archive. https://archive.archaeology.org/9701/newsbriefs/homo.html