Emergence and Circular Logic

Today I'm seeking knowledge or debate on a question I have regarding emergence. And my reasoning might be built around flawed assumptions, so feel free to correct my flawed assumptions (if you'd be so kind).

The first assumption I've gathered is that in emergence theory, you can define man as having emergent properties from the environment, that is to say that man is shaped by his environment.

But man clearly shapes the environment (non-trivially) by his (or her) existence within it and by his or her actions within it. Therefore the corollary of the first statement given this fact, is that the environment is an emergent property of itself (that is it is self modifying).

By this logic it could also be said that man is an emergent property of himself because as he modifies the environment, he is also shaped by it. A fictitious example of this would be if mankind was the motive force behind global warming then a new version of the human genome emerged (via mutation) that conferred special temperature mediating characteristics (less hair, better sweat glands, etc), or put simply, that man adapted to the environment he created. By all accounts, this mutation would have emerged by man's direct actions on the environment AND as an emergent property of the environment itself, which was modified by man, whom was modified by the environment, and so on.

It seems therefore that a reductionist theory is preferred that investigates end-to-end causality in both circumstances. There is nothing wrong in principle with self-modifying systems, but they clearly require an external motive force. This seems where reductionism and emergence aren't mutually exclusive, but emergence surely requires boundaries in reasoning or knowledge (i.e. a finite "start point" that is non-axiomatic). Is this another example of Godel's incompleteness theorem?