Mark, I am not sure we are in disagreement.
I was using "nature" in a different sense from the way you are. By
"nature" I meant "proceses uninfluenced by human activity". There are few
such processes left around now, though once humans were too puny a part of
(your meaning of) nature to have much more than local impact (which was
often significant to be sure).
I agree humans are part of nature by one understanding, but we are a truly
extraordinary and very problematic part, whose continued existence is by
no means guaranteed, nor, necessariy, should be. I think it is helpful to
view "humans" and "nature" separately, and their interaction as well, in a
long time span--past, present, and future--in which we see the human part
of the interaction growing enormously and dangerously compared to the
(still powerful, but diminishing) "natural" part so that even "nature"
requires ever more massive human attention and care if it, and we, are to
survive.
As I said previously, that we can pay the attention and care nature
requires, in time, and appropriately, is very unclear to me. But Earth
(and the Cosmos) can do quite well without humans, as it did for such a
long time before.
