It's an interesting thought. It is important to apply some critical thinking to the manipulative use of words by consumer marketing forces. There is a deliberate attempt being made to influence behavior by tapping into a primal instinct, for personal gain.

I kind of feel, like you have swung too far in the opposite direction. There is probably a middle ground which is more reasonable. When I try to envision balance, I like to draw upon archetypal images.

When I think of nature and the manipulation of nature, I like to draw a comparison of the feminine and the masculine. Mother nature exists as the feminine quality of our material existence, waiting to be seduced and manipulated by the conscious attention of Man (the masculine forceful manipulator). However in any scenario of manipulation, there is the element of balance and receptivity. If Man simply rapes Nature for his own hedonistic desire, then it is an affront to Nature, and usually results in a backlash. Environments become toxic and unlivable. The fruits of the other are not given up willingly. Nature does not love the abuser.

There is a quality of 'natural' that is true and real, but it's not the one that advertisers are selling us. That is a deception that we blindly concede to in our acceptance of a consumer society.

The connection with nature, is a connection with what we have come from. You express as much in your article when you say that it is all natural (man-made as well). I guess I would just say that the consciousness of man is a force that manipulates the natural and some of those manipulations are an affront to the nature.