I agree this is all about semantics, you seem to consider nature only for its bad sides (but don’t forget we also get all our food from nature).

Nature is really terrible, actually. It’s an endless cycle of violence, death

Dying sucks but I don’t think we should ever stop doing that (at a reasonable age, let’s be clear).

I agree that being above the violent killing part of nature should be an ideal, but I’m sorry to say I don’t believe we’re there yet, people are still killing; for food, for fun, for greed, just look at the news… :'(

I resent this “man is part of nature” argument because at face value it romanticizes suffering.

Here you raise an important question: does being part of nature exclude us from using technology?

I don’t believe so. To me being part of nature does not mean to live like our ancestors did when there was no manmade things, or when you would get burned at the stake for doing science…
(I’m not sure in what periods of history you would consider we were part of nature).

The way I see it, we could be part of nature while using a lot of the technologies we use today. We would just need to tweak (a lot) of them and drop the use of many more, but I’m convinced that, if everybody started taking their responsibilities, we could find effective ways to produce enough medicine and food without the damage that those currently cause.

So yeah, I get you, you get me, we just don’t mean the same thing when we say nature :)