> An interesting criticism of this stance is the implication that nature is more important than humans With our current usage of Nature's resources, human civi

> An interesting criticism of this stance is the implication that nature is more important than humans With our current usage of Nature's resources, human civilization is probably not sustainable. Therefore, protecting Nature benefits humans. > and that humans will never be space-faring. A forced mass-exodus to the stars might help. Depending on the resources necessary to move billions of humans, this might well doom this planet. Exploiting off-world resources is a non-solution since it would mean just throwing more resources at our problems. Basic survival of Nature and the Human race is almost certain, even without space travel. Survival of our civilization is not.