> The premise is flawed, therefore the conclusion is moot.
Yes but not in the way your dog analogy argues. The reality is that anything humans chose to do is be definition in our nature so strict environmental policy is not a limit on our behavior, it is our behavior.
> holding ourselves back a little (also called restraint) is not a bad thing
Of course, but you have to accept that our desire to preserve nature is selfish or else you end up seeing humanity as a cancer to be destroyed instead of the most advanced part of nature to be promoted.
It's selfish and limiting in the same way that going to the gym and eating well is limiting. Maybe the view of progress that says lazing around and eating sugar (poisoning our water supply, endless pollution, etc) will come home to roost. Ironically enough, we have already implemented lots of anti-progress memes like the EPA and CAA after seeing the fruits of progress!
Right, but like diet and exercise, we protect the environment for our own benefit, including our ability to visit untouched ecosystems. We dont protect nature because it is more important than humanity.
Yes but not in the way your dog analogy argues. The reality is that anything humans chose to do is be definition in our nature so strict environmental policy is not a limit on our behavior, it is our behavior.
> holding ourselves back a little (also called restraint) is not a bad thing
Of course, but you have to accept that our desire to preserve nature is selfish or else you end up seeing humanity as a cancer to be destroyed instead of the most advanced part of nature to be promoted.