I think views such as this take a premise of peace in nature -- that without external influence, Earth would be relatively static. But we know this is false. Fo

I think views such as this take a premise of peace in nature -- that without external influence, Earth would be relatively static. But we know this is false. For instance (as per the topic of this article) these [1] are the temperature readings we have from various sources, just over the past 400k years (things get really wacky going back a bit further). Literally before humanity existed we see extreme global climatic swings happening on very short time scales, with upwards of 9 degree (celsius) temperature changes. We are likely exasperating both the acceleration and magnitude of the most recent swing, but even if humanity did not exist or even if we managed to achieve 0 carbon output, we'd see a warming event happening some time right about now. And it's easy to forget that throughout the history of our planet that have been numerous mass extinction events where nearly everything on this planet went extinct, all without any help from any species whatsoever, let alone humans. For instance during during the Permian-Triassic extinction period, about 250 million years ago, some 96% of species ended up going extinct. All of the incredible diversity we know as life today emerged from those 4% that survived. The point of this is that Earth and nature are not inherently peaceful or stable. We live on a brutal planet that has a habit of killing just about everything that manages to evolve on it with a pretty good degree of regularity. The one and only reason we might not end up going extinct, in the longrun, is because of our intelligence. Be one with nature and it will, sooner or later, kill you. Overcome it, and you might just survive. [1] - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_...