It depends what you mean by our "modern" understanding of nature. If we're talking about the objective, scientific kind that feeds into capitalistic industry and ultimately consumerism, that's the distortion I'm calling "humanization." Potentially, though, the scientific picture could lead to a re-enchantment or a return of pantheism, such as to the cosmicist kind I'm presenting in these writings. That would be a "modern" view of nature, too, but it's not yet widespread.

Another question is whether we could even survive without humanizing nature. If birds have to fly and spiders have to spin webs, surely we have to tell stories, socialize, and humanize the inhuman (with our tools, cultures, cities, etc). There would be no "modernity" without that overextension of our social impulses. We survived for hundreds of thousands of years in the wild, in the Stone Age, but not as behaviourally modern people.

Our species would have to change drastically to survive without our artificial refuges. So the question is what kind of societies we could sustain on top of re-enchanted, pantheistically-conceived nature.