I have no problem with any definition of bushcraft, as long as it is consistent. If we have to use another word for being able to live outdoors without modern gear, then so be it. If we say that bushcraft is anything related to nature, or a bushcrafter is someone who enjoys nature, then the term has become so broad that it no longer has much meaning. If I take an RV, drive it into the woods and stay there, am I practicing bushcraft? What if it is a hotel located in the woods-still bushcraft? At some point we can bring so much gear that we simply relocate our house closer to the forest. Where is the line, I don't know, but I think there has to be one if the term is going to have any meaning.
As far as which people actualy do what I specified in my last post, probably not many. I certianly don't. Throughout history most people have never wanted to rely entirely on knowledge of the environment. As most of us, they wanted to make life as easy as possible. Today we are here in a peculiar situation, where we try to do something (bushcraft) without having to. We remove comforts so we can presumably learn something. Saying that the mountain men would rather bring a house, two horses and three women with them on a trip does not change what we do. The more we bring, the less bushcraft skills we use. The same has been true throughout history. There are skills that Nessmuk never developed because he did not have to.
I think the highest form of knowledge when it comes to bushcraft is to go into the woods with nothing, and be able to procure what you need from the environment-flint, water, food, shelter, etc. It is very hard to do, and in most situation impossible. I don't know many people who would even be interested in doing it. However, if we call that bushcraft as well as sitting in a hotel with a view of the forest, then maybe we need more diverse terminology.