a common definition of nature is the stuff that is untouched by humans.
as wiktionary puts it:
flora and fauna as distinct from human conventions, art, and technology
Some indigenous peoples cooperate with their natural environment. Humans are fundamentally a keystone species that’s collectively gotten really bad at it, to get good at other things. We could have human conventions, art, and technology that works entirely with nature and our environment rather than against it. Between these facts, I’m not a fan of that definition.
If i see you get attacked by wild animals i guess i won’t try to help you, wouldn’t want to go against nature or anything
It’s funny how this is downvoted. Not that I agree, but wouldn’t that be the logical conclusion?
Rest assured, i don’t agree with it either, but as you say this seems to follow from the statement
We shouldn’t treat/cure cancer, cancer happens in nature and we’re a part of nature
We shouldn’t try to prevent rape, rape happens in nature and we’re part of nature
We shouldn’t try to limit animal suffering, animal suffering happens in nature and we’re part of nature
It’s the good old argument from naturalism
