In an effort to identify the social sources and environmental consequences of axial thinking, and in particular of rational naturalism, three civilizational centres are compared: Ancient Mesopotamia, China, and Greece. Analysis of a series of societal features suggests that 1) axial thinking in the form of reflective intellectual networks arose in areas where a pre-axial priesthood was organizationally and functionally weak; 2) for the emergence of axial naturalism free-lance intellectuals in the midst of social revolutions appears to have been a crucial factor; 3) axial innovations were grafted onto a more archaic distinction of nature and culture; and 4) notwithstanding the form or context of Axial thinking, environmental treatment remained exploitative as a consequence of state-led political and economic issues.