We do build things. I'm in SF where we have recently replaced the Bay Bridge, dug a big ol' tunnel, put up skyscrapers and luxury condos, etc. What we don't d

We do build things. I'm in SF where we have recently replaced the Bay Bridge, dug a big ol' tunnel, put up skyscrapers and luxury condos, etc. What we don't do is build housing. (A lot of people blame NIMBYism for that but the situation is complex.) > The lack of power generation, power transmission, and pretty much any infrastructure you can think of is another. A friend of mine drives a Tesla, he says charging stations are cropping up all over. 5G is rolling out. There is a lot of aging infrastructure that needs to be repaired, rebuilt, or retired, but we're not quite Mad Max yet. > I agree that there is some conflict of interest between humans and untouched nature, and I am firmly on the side of us, humanity! I don't agree with that framing. First of all, tactically, you're siding with the underdog! :) Nature could literally wipe us out in the blink of an eye. A single hurricane can devastate a whole city in a few hours, Godzilla-style. However, that's not the real reason why I don't think there's a real conflict of interest. The reason is that untouched nature is the only baseline (in the entire known universe) for sanity. We need nature. As we enter a computer-mediated "metaverse" or cyberspace, and especially as we allow our infants and children to grow up in it, untouched nature will become exponentially more important as (literal!) grounding for humanity. That's why something like E. O. Wilson's Half Earth proposal is so important ( https://www.half-earthproject.org/ https://www.half-earthproject.org/ ) We only have one biosphere in the entire universe, of course we should try to preserve it intact and in working order! After all we have the rest of the solar system to do human stuff, eh?