**There are several ways to interpret this claim and evaluate Nature's 'health'.** Before we decide whether Nature can heal itself, we need to define what this healing looks like. This involves two possible interpretations: - _Nature can return very closely to a previous state that is deemed optimal._ - _Nature can re-establish a balanced and thriving ecosystem._ Now, we can read the claim itself to mean: - _The climate crisis can be resolved without human change or intervention._ The climate crisis refers to the [numerous consequences](https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/) of climate change and global warming, caused by increasing emissions of 'Nature can heal itself' could be taken to mean that Nature can and will eventually reverse climate change on its own, and that we are not required to make our own attempts at mitigation. In other words, can the climate crisis be resolved while we do nothing about it? - _Nature can return to its pre-Anthropocene state._ The human species has been credited with widespread environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. We can interpret this claim to mean that global ecosystems can return to their former balance and begin to thrive as though we had not existed, whether with or without our influence. In other words, can Nature ever be as it was before we began to [pillage the Earth](https://www.nationalgeographic.org/topics/resource-library-human-impacts-environment/?q=&page=1&per_page=25)? - _Nature can re-establish a thriving ecosystem after any disruptive event._ This interpretation may be the most common, in which we are assuming Nature can bounce back from any arbitrary disaster. Over the course of Earth's tumultuous history, there have been [five mass extinction events](https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-mass-extinction-and-are-we-facing-a-sixth-one.html#:~:text=How%20many%20mass%20extinctions%20have,face%20of%20life%20on%20Earth.), after each of which there has been a resumption of live on the planet. Nature did not return to its previous state in these circumstances, but succeeded in establishing new and thriving ecosystems - e.g., the mammalian takeover of the planet in the wake of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction. Are there instances in which Nature cannot heal itself, regardless of the chosen interpretation? For example, what if the Earth itself is [consumed by the sun](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sun-will-eventually-engulf-earth-maybe/)? Should we consider these possibilities when forming an opinion, or do they render the discussion redundant?

**Nature would benefit from eradicating the effects of industrialisation, however without indigenous conservation nature would struggle** - I shall interpret this question as whether nature can reclaim itself from the damage/influence of humans. - The impacts the modern industrial era have been overwhelmingly damaging to nature, and in areas where humans have left their mark before abandoning infrastructure, there are multiple [examples](https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.sciencefocus.com/nature/life-finds-a-way-when-nature-reclaims-abandoned-places/amp/) of nature reclaiming itself. - That is, plants have taken over ruins and wildlife has returned to an extent. - However, I do not believe nature can fully reclaim itself. - Firstly, whilst some argue extinction is a natural phenomenon which does not always need preventing, conservation work is helping to prevent the [extinction of multiple species](https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/10/up-to-48-species-saved-from-extinction-by-conservation-efforts-study-finds-aoe) which are not always threatened due to human interference. - Secondly, some human damage is essentially irreparable by nature such as radioactive waste, long lasting plastics and the [hole in the ozone layer](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/02/06/sorry-earth-the-ozone-layer-isnt-healing-itself-after-all/amp/). - Finally, indigenous people’s practices of the [conservation](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-conservation-efforts-can-learn-from-indigenous-communities/) of nature have worked alongside nature to prevent natural fires, invasive species and overgrowth for thousands of years before industrialisation. - The idea that nature can only be reclaimed by the eradication of human interference is false, and even racist. - Such practices by indigenous people _are_ a part of nature. - The idea of natural, wild spaces untouched by humans is a [myth](https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-myth-of-a-wilderness-without-humans/).