12/03/2025
Regenerative Agriculture as a Return to Nature: Cultivating Harmony or Controlling Chaos?
By Tendai L Sachiti
Introduction: The Paradox of Regeneration
Regenerative agriculture is often portrayed as a return to nature—a way of healing the land, restoring soil health, and working in harmony with natural systems. It presents itself as an antidote to the extractive, mechanistic approach of industrial agriculture. But beneath this noble vision lies a fundamental paradox: is regenerative agriculture truly a way of surrendering to nature’s intelligence, or is it simply a more refined method of human intervention?
At its core, agriculture is an act of control. The very notion of cultivating land implies selecting, managing, and influencing natural processes to serve human purposes. If regenerative agriculture seeks to restore nature’s balance, does that mean it is undoing human interference, or is it simply reshaping it into a more sustainable form?
This article explores the philosophical underpinnings of regenerative agriculture—its relationship with control, chaos, and the deeper human quest for harmony with the earth.
The Myth of Letting Nature Take Its Course
The idea that regenerative agriculture is a “return to nature” suggests that nature, left alone, would regenerate on its own. This assumption raises a crucial question: what is “nature,” and what does it mean to return to it?
In the wild, ecosystems do not exist in a static state of balance but are constantly evolving through cycles of growth, decay, competition, and renewal. Left entirely untouched, a degraded landscape does not necessarily regenerate in a way that aligns with human agricultural needs. A barren, overgrazed field might not return to lush fertility within a human lifetime.
Regenerative agriculture, then, is not a passive act of stepping back but a guided process—one that involves soil amendments, rotational grazing, cover cropping, and other intentional interventions. While these methods mimic natural cycles, they are ultimately human-designed. This raises the question: can we truly “let nature take its course” while simultaneously managing its direction?
Control vs. Harmony: A Taoist Perspective
In Western philosophy, humans have long seen themselves as separate from nature—either as its masters (as in the biblical idea of dominion over the earth) or as its stewards, responsible for its care. But Eastern thought, particularly Taoism, offers a different perspective.
Taoism emphasizes wu wei, a concept often translated as “effortless action” or “non-interference.” It suggests that the best way to engage with the world is not through force or control, but through alignment with the natural flow of things.
Regenerative agriculture, at its best, embodies this principle. Instead of fighting against natural systems (as industrial agriculture does with pesticides and chemical fertilizers), it seeks to work with them—building soil health, fostering biodiversity, and creating self-sustaining cycles of fertility.
But even this approach involves an inherent contradiction: if we are designing a system that mimics nature, are we still imposing human will upon it? A wild forest grows according to its own logic, while a food forest—despite being diverse and self-sustaining—is ultimately a human-designed ecosystem. At what point does guidance become control?
Ethical Questions: Healing or Hubris?
If regenerative agriculture is a form of intervention, does that make it an act of wisdom or arrogance?
Some environmental thinkers argue that nature does not need our help. They advocate for “rewilding” projects, where human impact is minimized, allowing ecosystems to recover without interference. From this perspective, even regenerative agriculture can be seen as an act of human hubris—assuming we know best how to “fix” the land.
However, others argue that we have already altered the earth too profoundly to withdraw completely. There is no pristine, untouched nature left. Human activity—whether deforestation, soil degradation, or climate change—has reshaped ecosystems in ways that demand active restoration. In this view, regenerative agriculture is not an imposition on nature, but a responsibility—a way of healing the wounds we have inflicted.
This tension mirrors the broader philosophical debate between anthropocentrism (the belief that humans have the right to shape the world for their needs) and ecocentrism (the belief that nature has intrinsic value beyond human use). Can regenerative agriculture exist without centering human needs, or is it always, ultimately, about creating a system that benefits us?
A Dance, Not a Battle
Perhaps the answer lies not in choosing between control and surrender, but in redefining our relationship with the land. The philosopher Martin Buber spoke of two ways of relating to the world: “I-It” (seeing nature as a resource to be used) and “I-Thou” (engaging with nature as a living presence, worthy of respect).
Regenerative agriculture, at its highest expression, moves toward an I-Thou relationship with the land. It is not about domination, nor is it about passive withdrawal. It is about participation—observing, responding, and adapting in a way that neither imposes nor retreats entirely.
Alan Watts once described life as a dance rather than a battle. In a dance, neither partner seeks to dominate the other; instead, they move in response to each other’s rhythms. Perhaps this is the true spirit of regenerative agriculture—not as a rigid system, nor as a hands-off approach, but as an ongoing dialogue with the earth.
So, as we cultivate the soil, are we regenerating nature, or are we still shaping it in our own image? The answer may not lie in the land itself, but in the mindset with which we approach it.
By Tendai L Sachiti