<p>I'm not a professional astronomer, but I still think I may be able to help.</p>

<p>In response to your comment to WayfaringStranger's answer</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Do you naturally think of nature if you think about Mars? </p>
</blockquote>

<p>No, not really. I think that this is also partly due to society's perception of nature as a whole. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> gives a decent explanation of this:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Natura</em> was a Latin translation of the Greek word <em>physis</em> (φύσις), which originally related to the intrinsic characteristics that plants, animals, and other features of the world develop of their own accord.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But it goes on to say</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The concept of nature as a whole, the physical universe, is one of several expansions of the original notion; it began with certain core applications of the word φύσις by pre-Socratic philosophers, and has steadily gained currency ever since.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So the original concept of nature was life, but we've expanded since then into everything that isn't made by humans.</p>

<p>So I suppose it depends partly on your personal viewpoint (or time period!), but it does seem like <em>nature</em> today refers to the entire universe.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-23T00:12:49.267Z
2014-10-23T00:12:49.267Z
HDE 226868
<p>One possible criteria could be that nature is what is natural, not anthropogenic or artificial. This could then be subdivided into fertile nature or sterile nature. Earth with lifeforms, even if it's just <a href="https://www.easybiologyclass.com/compare-archaebacteria-bacteria-and-eukaryotes-similarities-and-differences-table/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">bacteria, archaea or eukaryotic</a> would be an example of fertile or live nature. Celestial objects devoid of life could be classified as sterile nature</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-06T09:27:51.950Z
2022-05-06T09:27:51.950Z
Fred
<p>ARTFL <a href="https://www.definitions.net/definition/Nature" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nature</a> (Webster Dictionary, you have to scroll down a bit):</p>
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>The existing system of things; the world of matter, or of matter and mind; the creation; the universe.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>That definition includes the surface of Mars, and the core of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Betelgeuse</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-22T23:58:24.597Z
It seems that there are different definitions of it. Do you naturally think of nature if you think about Mars?
P.R.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2014-10-22T23:51:00.120Z
2022-05-06T06:20:58.470Z
2022-05-06T06:20:58.470Z
Wayfaring Stranger
<p>If I am talking about the surface of Mars, is this still nature, comparable to uninhabited places on earth, or does nature exclusively describe not man-made things on earth. </p>

<p>I am asking this question in Astronomy, because I would like to know what astronomers or other people dealing with extraterrestrial science on a regular basis think about it.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-06T07:36:59.003Z
As somebody in the philosophy department who does write environmental ethics papers (OK, one paper) and does extraterrestrial science, I think the question is somewhat ill-posed: astronomers are going to have opinions, but this site is more about questions that have proper answers than for sampling opinions. This is especially true for definitional questions that lie outside what astronomers normally *do*. The definition of nature matters much less, and is hence less constrained, here than in e.g. environmental science.
Anders Sandberg
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-23T00:28:50.163Z
Why would it *not* count as nature?
Keith Thompson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-23T20:33:03.887Z
I had a tiny argument about it. I am defending the "radical" side of abstraction of  nature as everything not man-made. Other people have the stance that since Mars is, first, not on Earth, and secondly an essentially uninhabitable blob drifting in an uninhabitable void, and therefore outside of the concept of nature. I imagine that viewpoint as a romantic one, but I was not sure what the consensus would be.
P.R.
<extra-terrestrial>
Do extraterrestrial landscapes or planets count as nature?
P.R.
# Do extraterrestrial landscapes or planets count as nature?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-10-22)

If I am talking about the surface of Mars, is this still nature, comparable to uninhabited places on earth, or does nature exclusively describe not man-made things on earth.

I am asking this question in Astronomy, because I would like to know what astronomers or other people dealing with extraterrestrial science on a regular basis think about it.

**Tags:** extra-terrestrial

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Why would it *not* count as nature?  
> **username_0**: I had a tiny argument about it. I am defending the "radical" side of abstraction of  nature as everything not man-made. Other people have the stance that since Mars is, first, not on Earth, and secondly an essentially uninhabitable blob drifting in an uninhabitable void, and therefore outside of the concept of nature. I imagine that viewpoint as a romantic one, but I was not sure what the consensus would be.  
> **username_1**: As somebody in the philosophy department who does write environmental ethics papers (OK, one paper) and does extraterrestrial science, I think the question is somewhat ill-posed: astronomers are going to have opinions, but this site is more about questions that have proper answers than for sampling opinions. This is especially true for definitional questions that lie outside what astronomers normally *do*. The definition of nature matters much less, and is hence less constrained, here than in e.g. environmental science.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-10-23. Score: 1

I'm not a professional astronomer, but I still think I may be able to help.

In response to your comment to username_5's answer

> Do you naturally think of nature if you think about Mars?

No, not really. I think that this is also partly due to society's perception of nature as a whole. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature) gives a decent explanation of this:

> *Natura* was a Latin translation of the Greek word *physis* (φύσις), which originally related to the intrinsic characteristics that plants, animals, and other features of the world develop of their own accord.

But it goes on to say

> The concept of nature as a whole, the physical universe, is one of several expansions of the original notion; it began with certain core applications of the word φύσις by pre-Socratic philosophers, and has steadily gained currency ever since.

So the original concept of nature was life, but we've expanded since then into everything that isn't made by humans.

So I suppose it depends partly on your personal viewpoint (or time period!), but it does seem like *nature* today refers to the entire universe.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2022-05-06. Score: 1

One possible criteria could be that nature is what is natural, not anthropogenic or artificial. This could then be subdivided into fertile nature or sterile nature. Earth with lifeforms, even if it's just [bacteria, archaea or eukaryotic](https://www.easybiologyclass.com/compare-archaebacteria-bacteria-and-eukaryotes-similarities-and-differences-table/) would be an example of fertile or live nature. Celestial objects devoid of life could be classified as sterile nature


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2014-10-22. Score: 1

ARTFL [Nature](https://www.definitions.net/definition/Nature) (Webster Dictionary, you have to scroll down a bit):

> 1. The existing system of things; the world of matter, or of matter and mind; the creation; the universe.

That definition includes the surface of Mars, and the core of [Betelgeuse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: It seems that there are different definitions of it. Do you naturally think of nature if you think about Mars?  

---

