It is obvious that man is causing the deterioration of the Earth's environment, but what exactly is he doing wrong? I am only expressing my opinion. My explanation is brief because the answer is simple.

Nature does not destroy the Earth's environment. Man does. What's the difference? The difference is rational thought. Nature is non-rationalizing. When things happen in nature, there is no rationalizing involved. When man does something, it is usually the result of rational thought. Clear-cutting a forest, building a road, damming a river, constructing and operating a power plant are all a result of rational thought. Since there is no act that occurs in nature that is a result of rational thought, actions based upon rational thought are unnatural. If acts based upon rational thought are unnatural, they must be incompatible with nature. Of course, if man were to limit his rational acts to singing, snapping his fingers and scratching his head; the effects on the environment would be miniscule, only a little noise pollution and a sprinkling of dandruff (just kidding). Man never seems to limit his rational acts to those things that have an insignificant effect on the environment. Even the Native Americans, an invasive species, altered their environment by hunting large game animals to extinction and burning down forests. Man, as a result of rational thought, releases into the environment many chemicals; intentionally or not. These are chemicals that would never have entered the environment by natural means and therefore the effects on nature, though not completely known, are unlikely to be compatible with nature. Pollution is just the result of actions based upon rational thought. On Earth, this means man, but if the evolutionary course had been different; it could have been another species. The end result would have been the same. Science and Technology cannot solve the world's problems; they are part of the cause. The more advanced society becomes, the faster the Environment deteriorates. Existence, based on rational thought, is not sustainable. Man is a rational being who acts based upon rational thought; therefore man is incompatible with nature. Even if man makes an attempt to live in harmony with nature, he will try to do so using rational thought; which will always result in an adverse effect on nature. If actions based on rational thought are unnatural and incompatible with nature, then intelligent beings capable of acting based upon rational thought must be unstable and short-lived. If this principle applies elsewhere in the universe, it may explain why intelligent life is so difficult to detect; they are always short-lived.

Links to some of my other radical beliefs:

Biological Explanation of Racial and Ethnic Conflicts

Why man acquired the Instinctive Need for Religion

Relative Ranking Between Male and Female Mammals

Ritz Camera Store