Never mind, that’s the price you’ll have to pay

[Macsky]

I think you answer your own question!

But as for pre-history, certainly, up to the point where what I mention was achieved / done.

Of course it must be borne in mind that some groups of humans generally and at different times have done far more or less damage than others.

But supposedly 'natural' people such as e.g. Australian aboriginals, have done enormous damage, wiping out entire families of mega-fauna, and are only now in 'balance' with the environment they have created.

Damage from exactly who’s point of view tho? The whole ‘nature is more valuable than people’ argument is a strange one, obviously anti human, i do wonder how much ground it’ll gain before there is proper want and suffering experienced on a population level because of it.

The point I’m kind of getting at is that i find it strange that man, using his natural abilities and natural faculties, is vilified for doing so and considered unnatural in this world.

 

[Top Tip.]

Damage from exactly who’s point of view tho? The whole ‘nature is more valuable than people’ argument is a strange one, obviously anti human, i do wonder how much ground it’ll gain before there is proper want and suffering experienced on a population level because of it.

The point I’m kind of getting at is that i find it strange that man, using his natural abilities and natural faculties, is vilified for doing so and considered unnatural in this world.

I think that would only be from a small but very vocal minority.

 

[Macsky]

I think that would only be from a small but very vocal minority.

Which seem to have western governments by the nose at the moment, but who’s leading who?

 

[Top Tip.]

Ah yes, another option I rather stupidly overlooked... repeating what I write in parrot fashion...

If you possessed perception you would understand sarcasm.

 

[Danllan]

If you possessed perception you would understand sarcasm.

Ha! I'm with Horace: mutato nomine de te fabula narratur.

Damage from exactly who’s point of view tho? The whole ‘nature is more valuable than people’ argument is a strange one, obviously anti human, i do wonder how much ground it’ll gain before there is proper want and suffering experienced on a population level because of it.

The point I’m kind of getting at is that i find it strange that man, using his natural abilities and natural faculties, is vilified for doing so and considered unnatural in this world.

I know you are, I have come across such a mindset many times. And if you think that since man did indeed evolve on this planet, all subsequent effects caused by his actions are - by definition - 'natural', I guess it's a logical position to take.

However, I think it is entirely reasonable and more rational to take the opposite view and look at human actions, from the point mentioned, as being 'beyond' - for want of a better word - the natural order of things.

And then there is morality... almost entirely a personal thing, though of course much can be shared with others on any given matter. I think that being able to do something doesn't automatically make it a right, let alone a rational thing to do.

I believe, on the basis of weighing the information available, and with the exception of emergency situations, that where we humans can do something - even something essential - in a manner less harmful to the natural world than any alternatives, the less harmful way is the one to go for. And I am happy to concede that I simply can't understand how anyone would wish to take another course, unless they are mentally troubled, with something like psychopathic tendencies.

Right, happy to carry on anon, but I'm on my chinstrap now, nos da.