Thanks. I agree that it would be oversimplifying to say that nature is bad and civilization is good. It would be more precise to say that nature is absurd, amoral, and horrifyingly inhuman. We can ignore that existential aspect and focus on the superficial beauty in nature, but the dichotomy persists.

Elsewhere I've discussed the difference between nature-as-wilderness and artificiality, on the one hand, and the ontological dualism of nature vs mind, on the other. I agree that everything in the universe is metaphysically or ultimately natural. But understanding how nature evolves require the meta-historical distinction between nature-as-the-prehumanized-wilderness and the artificial domains we build and prefer to inhabit. The metaphysical unity doesn't take you very far in understanding what's going on.