The possibility of naturalism has largely determined the usage of Nature as a foundation for political thinking during the second half of the twentieth century. Green thinkers have persistently claimed that the separation between nature and culture should be abolished due to its scientific inconsistency and moral perversity, and our view of human nature had to be changed accordingly. However, their account of Nature seems to be an idealization of the natural world which is unable to explain the fact that Nature does not exist anymore, transformed as it is into human environment. Yet a new form of naturalism has risen, one which is more descriptive than prescriptive, namely: the view of Nature stemming from neurosciences and genetic biology. According to it, human nature can be reduced to bits of information connected in complex ways within us and transmitted to our descendants via evolution. It seems to be a safe foundation for the abolition of dualism. Nonetheless, does this fully explain what means to be human? Is it possible to state that the division between man and nature is but a delusion? Is a new morality regarding our relations with nature to be deduced from there? This paper will argue that we should not substitute one delusion for another. The separation between man and nature, although a historically emerged rather than an ontological one, must remain as a guide for social thinking, if we are to make sense of our place in the world and our relations to it.
