The whole thing is a vague, fluffy argument against the value of conservation. It tries to argue that nature isn't static and that we therefore shouldn't worry

The whole thing is a vague, fluffy argument against the value of conservation. It tries to argue that nature isn't static and that we therefore shouldn't worry about screwing it up. What's left out is the fact that nature's time scale of change is so slow compared to our own time scales, that it may as well be static from our perspective. We change things exponentially faster than natural systems have time to adapt to.