If there was ever a time to filter your water, and eat low on the food chain, it is now.

Of course, there is always the possibility that we have more than one ontological locus, more than one location for our being. Maybe we derive our being both from nature and from the technical. It also becomes difficult (as it does with any binary) to maintain a strict delineation between nature and technology. It seems pretty obvious that a jumbo jet is NOT natural. But if we are a part of nature, then how can our inventions exist in a different sphere? Or maybe, as Zizek claims, once we have life 2.0, everything else is automatically life 1.0. So maybe its technology all the way down.

This reminds me of issues raised in The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace by Margaret Wertheim, in which Wertheim argues that cyberspace is the new sphere for the “I,” or the “soul.” She maintains that the dominant materialist cosmologies have left us without a theoretical space for phenomena that we consider extra-physical (the soul, identity, the “I”). For her, Cyberspace has opened up that spiritual space again. Wertheim’s answer to the charge that cyberspace is a physical phenomenon is not to deny its physicality but to describe it as an “emergent phenomenon”–a complex phenomenon that arises out of a multiplicity of simple interactions, but that cannot be reduced to its simple components.

I don’t think Wertheim’s arguments (whatever they are worth) solve any of these questions, but they do provide another frame for thinking nature-technology.

I don’t know.

These questions can be asked another way in regards to our ontological locus. Is our locus the natural or the technological? It seems that an answer to this question begins to tease apart answers to the dilemma posed in your post.