It is impossible to divorce nature from human influence. Can that influence be democratic?
On its face, Purdy's statement here is obviously true. Humans live in a human-created world that they construct within the World of Nature. "Ultimately," we live in the World of Nature, but most "immediately" we live in a world that we create. That's my "Two Worlds Hypothesis." One of the inevitable corollaries to this hypothesis is that our human actions will "influence" the World of Nature, which is what Purdy asserts.
The Anthropocene adds nature to the list of things we can no longer regard as natural.
The Anthropocene future is, unavoidably, a collective human project. The sense in which it is collective is, for the moment, merely empirical: the material life of the species, orchestrated in an increasingly integrated economic and technological order, is shaping the world.
The future of the earth will be the product of the ways in which human beings ... get our food, shelter ourselves, and move from place to place ...
As a practical matter, “Nature” no longer exists independent of human activity.