yea, the same issue always comes to my mind when people say something like, “Human beings are destroying the natural world.” Are WE not natural and part of the natural world? The answer seems, obviously, yes, and yet are uniquely hard on the rest of the natural world, so much so that simply by the scale of our impact we could be said to be something “unnatural.” it’s all very weird.
I once read the Unabomber’s Manifesto. To be clear, I’m most decidedly NOT pro-Unamomber or pro-eco-terrorism. I mean, 100 percent NO. Let’s get that straight. But, I decided to read it just out of curiosity, because for all his moral failings, he is, objectively, a highly intelligent person. So, I decided to to see what he wrote, and he actually made that has always stuck with me.
that point being that our relationship with nature is, ultimately, one of personal preference only, and not something that can really be “proven” in the way that a mathematical theorem can be proven or a science experiment can be validated.
If we are happier with less technology or more technology, then that is really up to us decide.
This is kind of a roundabout point on my part, but what I’m saying is that in contemplating what’s “right” or “wrong” with the meddling with the natural world of plants, a large portion of that question is completely personal and subjective.
so, someone being creeped out by re engineering the world’s plant system, in that line of thinking, is just as valid as someone who is really excited about it. as the Dude would say, “It’s just, like, your opinion, man.”
Anyway, I may not have explained my point well…and on top of that I may very well be wrong, but it seems to me that our relationship with technology and the natural world is wholly personal, an essentially existential decision to be made according to our personal character and preferences, rather than something that can definitively “proven” one way or the other.