> Even our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't live in balance with nature.
That depends on how one defines "balance with nature". We're just a species competing for resources with other species. To argue that what we do is anything but a normal survival strategy is to buy into a supernatural role for human beings on planet Earth. In fact we're a natural species, and we follow entirely predictable patterns of natural selection.
> Even retreating into the wilderness and living off the land just makes a big artificial farm-shaped hole in the wilderness.
And? Is a farm distinct from an anthill, or is it a natural variation? We may see ourselves as exceptional, as separate from nature, but nature certainly doesn't see us that way.
I completely agree, we are natural creatures. That doesn't mean that wiping out species and destroying ecosystems by our activities is OK.
In many cases it has long term detrimental consequences far in excess of the short term benefit of the economic activity causing the damage. Personally, I'm an advocate of factoring in the environmental costs of our economic activities and taking those costs into account. However the idea that we can live in balance without having an impact on the world around us is a fantasy.
That depends on how one defines "balance with nature". We're just a species competing for resources with other species. To argue that what we do is anything but a normal survival strategy is to buy into a supernatural role for human beings on planet Earth. In fact we're a natural species, and we follow entirely predictable patterns of natural selection.
> Even retreating into the wilderness and living off the land just makes a big artificial farm-shaped hole in the wilderness.
And? Is a farm distinct from an anthill, or is it a natural variation? We may see ourselves as exceptional, as separate from nature, but nature certainly doesn't see us that way.