4 thoughts on “June 30 Postnatural”

  1. Ena Sezairi (she/her)

    One idea from this week’s lecture that stayed with me is the argument that “nature” is not as separate from humans as we often imagine. The lecture explained that almost every landscape has been influenced by human activity in some way, whether through agriculture, urbanization, selective breeding, pollution, or climate change. This made me wonder whether our traditional goal of “returning nature to its original state” is even possible anymore. Instead of asking how to restore untouched nature, maybe we should ask what kind of environments we want to create for the future.

    This question becomes even more interesting when thinking about Demos’ idea of the “post-natural condition.” Rather than viewing human influence as something outside nature, Demos suggests that it has become part of the ecological reality we live in. I think this changes the role of environmental art. Instead of encouraging viewers to imagine a lost wilderness, artists can help us understand that humans are participants within ecosystems rather than separate observers. The lecture’s examples of invasive species, genetically modified organisms, and even the bacteria living inside our own bodies show that the boundary between what is “natural” and “artificial” is becoming increasingly difficult to define.

    The reading from Synthetic Environments also pushed me to think differently about technology. Discussions about artificial environments often sound negative because they remind us of pollution, industrialization, or climate change. However, I wonder if technology could become one of the most important tools for repairing ecological damage rather than simply causing it. Vertical farms, engineered wetlands, artificial coral reefs, and climate-adaptive landscapes are all examples of environments that are intentionally designed rather than naturally occurring. They are artificial, yet they may support biodiversity more effectively than damaged ecosystems left alone.

    This raises an interesting contradiction. Society often values something simply because it is labeled “natural,” while rejecting anything that appears artificial. Yet many ecosystems we admire today have already been shaped by centuries of human management. Likewise, some human-made environments now provide habitat for wildlife that no longer exists elsewhere. If that is the case, perhaps authenticity should not be measured by whether humans intervened, but by whether an environment supports healthy ecological relationships.

    As an architecture student, I found this especially relevant. Designers often try to make buildings appear as though they blend into untouched nature. After this lecture, I am beginning to think that design should instead acknowledge our responsibility as active participants in ecological systems. Rather than hiding human influence, architecture and environmental art could openly demonstrate how built environments can contribute to biodiversity, climate adaptation, and coexistence between humans and non-human species. The goal may no longer be to recreate a world without people, but to imagine a future where human creativity becomes part of ecological restoration instead of its opposite.

    ↓
  2. Deborah Amponsah

    This discussion challenged the way I think about nature. It explained that the idea of nature is much more complicated than that. Instead of seeing nature and humans as completely separate, the lecture introduced the idea of the “postnatural,” which shows that humans, animals, technology, and the environment are all connected.
    One part of the lecture that I found especially interesting was the discussion about Alan Sonfist’s artwork in New York City. The artist created a small area with plants that existed before the city was built. At first, it seemed like a simple way to preserve nature, but the lecture explained that it also raises questions about what we consider natural. It made me realize that even our ideas about nature are influenced by history and culture.
    I also thought the examples of animals were very interesting. The lecture talked about Indigenous communities that see wolves and orcas as part of their family and culture rather than something separate from humans. This was different from the way I usually think about animals. It showed me that different cultures have different relationships with nature, and there is no single way to understand it. Another part that stood out to me was the discussion about genetically modified animals and scientific research. I had never really thought about how much humans have already changed plants and animals through technology. The examples of cloned sheep, genetically modified rabbits, and laboratory mice showed me that the line between what is natural and unnatural is not always clear. The lecture made me question whether those labels are even useful anymore.
    I also liked the artwork that connected plants with social media. The idea that a plant could grow based on activity on Twitter was surprising, but it also showed how technology and nature can interact in unexpected ways. It reminded me that our everyday actions, even online, are connected to the world around us in ways we may not notice.
    Overall, I thought this lecture was very thought-provoking. It encouraged me to question ideas that I have always accepted without thinking much about them. I learned that nature is not simply something outside of human life. Instead, humans, animals, technology, and the environment constantly influence one another. After watching this lecture, I have a broader understanding of what nature means and why it is important to think about these connections when discussing environmental issues.

    ↓
  3. Sebastian D'Agosta (He/Him)

    If the idea is that nature is that which is real, then the concept of postnaturalism doesn’t make sense because it implies that everything surrounding us isn’t natural. There are some things, many of which don’t make sense, but that denotes from the fact that it is all still from the earth. Industrialization has led us to feel entirely separate and detached from nature, driven by an almost God-like complex; the idea that we are human and can dominate the globe around us is false.

    The most recent artwork I can think of that best exemplifies humanity’s disconnect from nature is one you guys may have seen online: this “Frankenchicken” protest artwork placed outside a Pret location in London. The work is a 15-foot-long model of a Pret chicken Caesar salad wrap, but instead of a grilled chicken breast, there is a chicken head. This was done to call out Pret for not following through on their 8-year-long promises to change the meat to their “updated, responsibly sourced” chicken. For the duration of that time, Pret and their meat suppliers have been using GMO chickens that grow too big too quickly, so much so that they fall over and cannot walk for the last two weeks of their month-long lifespan.

    The idea that humanity can genetically modify creatures and organisms we find in our natural environment is not necessarily horrifying or immoral. We have used genetic modification technologies for a lot of good in our time. The problem is that, because we operate in a domination-based society, GMOs will always be used for domination, and sometimes, that looks like completely altering the way an animal grows entirely for our benefit.

    This domination could even be seen as a good thing, like when we dominate nature by modifying crops so they can grow more or become insect-resistant. Ultimately, though, we see GMOs being used to harm animals we feel we can dominate. The irony is that since we are still natural and animals ourselves, these GMOs are coming to dominate us through a twisted inversion of the power structure. People find themselves getting sick and rejecting diets with any modified or processed contents.

    Postnaturalism doesn’t need to be defined by the continual patriarchal dominator-subject model of relationships. Postnaturalism could be something beautiful where we find our synergy with the natural world, and reorder humanity’s place in accordance with our environment. But to do this, we must first fundamentally alter our perceptions of what is natural and what isn’t.

    ↓
  4. Stephanie Taveras

    I’ve always thought of nature as something separate from humans like forests, oceans, animals, and places untouched by people. What stood out to me is how the idea of the “post natural” challenges that way of thinking. The examples of genetically modified animals, plastic pollution, and even plants growing through discarded objects made me realize that human activity has become part of nature whether we like it or not. One part of the reading that stuck with me was how plastic and other synthetic materials are now found almost everywhere on Earth and have become part of our ecosystems. It made me question where we draw the line between what is natural and what is artificial. I don’t think the answer is as simple as saying something is either natural or unnatural anymore. Instead, I think nature today includes the complicated relationship between humans, technology, and the environment. This discussion helped me see that rather than pretending humans are separate from nature, we need to recognize our role in shaping it and take more responsibility for the impact we have on the world around us.

    ↓

Leave a Reply