A vocabulary for the future: nature
For the philosopher Bruno Latour, seeing anything ‘natural’ as good and the ‘artificial’ as bad is perversely human-centric- by Aeon VideoWatch on Aeon.
The French philosopher Bruno Latour challenges the common idea that nature is inherently good and separate from human-made or artificial things. He argues that drawing a strict line between these two categories isn’t just a factual observation but a moral judgment: nature is often seen as pure and good, while the artificial is viewed as flawed or bad. This binary thinking, Latour suggests, oversimplifies reality by ignoring how deeply intertwined human actions and natural processes truly are. For example, a marble quarry wall or a city like Manhattan are often labeled as 'artificial,' yet they are part of the Earth’s geological and ecological systems. Latour’s critique highlights that such distinctions are not neutral but shaped by cultural and ethical assumptions.
Latour proposes moving beyond the idea that only humans possess agency—the capacity to act and make choices. Instead, he suggests that the world is filled with other beings (animals, plants, even objects) that also influence outcomes in their own ways. For instance, a green tree ant in the tropics doesn’t just react to its environment; it actively shapes it through its behaviors. This perspective challenges the human-centered view of the world, where nature is often seen as passive or acted upon. By recognizing agency in non-human entities, Latour argues, we can better understand the complex relationships that define our planet. This idea is central to his broader philosophical work, which emphasizes interconnectedness over separation.
To illustrate Latour’s ideas, the video pairs his arguments with visuals by filmmaker Gerard Ortín Castellví. The footage deliberately blurs the boundary between natural and artificial landscapes, showing how human activities like quarrying or urban development are embedded within natural systems. For example, the image of a marble quarry wall reveals patterns formed by geological processes, while the wooden railings and steps highlight human intervention. These visuals serve as a metaphor for Latour’s argument: the divide between 'natural' and 'artificial' is not fixed but fluid. The film is part of the series A Vocabulary for the Future, produced by the Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona (CCCB), which explores how language shapes our understanding of the world.
Latour’s critique targets a long-standing philosophical tradition that separates ontology (the study of what exists) from moral judgment (evaluations of good and bad). Traditionally, many thinkers have assumed that nature exists independently of human influence and that it is inherently valuable. Latour disputes this, arguing that such assumptions are not objective truths but cultural constructs. His work aligns with broader debates in posthumanism, a field that questions the dominance of human perspectives in philosophy and science. By rejecting the idea of a pristine, untouched nature, Latour invites us to reconsider how we interact with and value the world around us.
Latour’s ideas have practical implications for how we address environmental and social challenges. If nature and the artificial are not separate, then solutions to problems like climate change or urbanization must account for their entanglement. For example, policies aimed at 'protecting nature' often treat it as a static entity, but Latour’s perspective suggests that nature is dynamic and shaped by human actions. This challenges traditional conservation approaches and calls for more integrated, collaborative ways of thinking about sustainability. The video and Latour’s arguments encourage viewers to see the world as a network of relationships rather than a collection of isolated categories.
