Adam Curtis explored this in more detail in the second part of his 3-part documentary “All watched over by machines of loving grace“, titled “The use and abuse

Adam Curtis explored this in more detail in the second part of his 3-part documentary “All watched over by machines of loving grace“, titled “The use and abuse of vegetational concepts”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of_Loving_Grace_%28TV_series%29#Part_2._'The_Use_and_Abuse_of_Vegetational_Concepts' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_o... The concept of “balance of nature” is generally associated with the environmental movement, and I too thought so until I watched Curtis’ documentary. Here is a quote from the summary in the Wikipedia article: > However, this was opposed by many people within the environmental movement, since the model did not allow for people to change their values to stabilise the world, and they argued that the model tried to maintain and enforce the current political hierarchy. Arthur Tansley who had invented the term ecosystem, had once accused Field Marshal Jan Smuts of the "abuse of vegetational concepts". Smuts had invented a philosophy called holism, where everyone had a 'rightful place', which was to be managed by the white race. The 70s protestors claimed that the same conceptual abuse of the supposed natural order was occurring, that it was really being used for political control. The article subject of this discussion, from National Geographic, has much less substance to it but this is the part I think reflects the point that a blind adherence to that concept will actually damage the enviroment: > But the most obvious, and pressing, manifestation is the looming climate crisis, says Corinne Zimmerman, a psychologist at Illinois State University. While the vast majority of scientists agree that efforts to address climate change must involve human action, a public misconception about nature being in balance could inhibit progress. “If nature is all robust and fine, she'll take care of herself, we don't have to do anything about our carbon footprint,” she said. “It's a very naive understanding of nature.” This article in NatGeo is not detailed enough but it’s quick to read, so I would recommend anyone interested in protecting the environment to take a quick look at it, and in any case watch Adam Curtis’ documentary where he gives this idea a better grounding and shows how things end up not as intendend. We can not base the fight against the destruction of our natural environment on misconceptions. In the words of (fictional) astronaut Mark Watney[1], we are going to have to “science the shit out of this”. [1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mark+watney+science+the+shit+out+of+this&t=canonical https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mark+watney+science+the+shit+out+o...