The third option, (c), is supposed to be humanistic rather than nihilistic. The guiding faith is in the preciousness of personhood.

I'll have to look more into Fuller, but I have a soft spot for transhumanism. I can see how transhumanism might straddle (b) and (c), since transhumanism implies a transformation of humanity into a superior species, which would violate humanism. Yet that transformation wouldn't necessarily be due to a submission to natural evolution. This would be artificial evolution, which would be compatible with an existential revolt against nature's monstrousness.

The Hippies were naive about nature, I think, since they were high on entheogens, goddess religions, JRR Tolkein's virtual Shinto, and Eastern mysticism such as Taoism. I mean, you can run with that interpretation, but what I'm trying to do is describe an underlying, metahistorical process (the existential, humanistic revolt against the wilderness). I suspect we often unconsciously proceed from that revolt even when we take ourselves to be appreciating nature's beauty.