[thaumaturgy]

I would also call myself an environmentalist, yet statements like this are the major reason I've been reluctant to identify as such loudly or often. Misguided environmentalists have for a long time been steadfastly opposed to nuclear energy for example, and I have not.

The on-the-ground reality is that concern for and protection of the natural environment are relatively recent practices and must be balanced against the continued technological and sociological progress of humanity. Otherwise, the answer is easily that the best thing for "the environment" is the complete extinction of humans. While some people may want to give that a serious treatment, I've always wondered why those people don't volunteer to go first.

Likewise, poorer societies produce less pollution than wealthier ones, so environmentalists willing to forego any kind of human progress in favor of protecting the environment should at least consider migrating altogether to countries without telecommunications infrastructure.

We don't yet know what all of the benefits and costs will arise from a lower barrier to space exploration. But, humans exist all over this planet right now because exploration is part of our nature. Rejecting space exploration out of hand is to reject our very nature -- a curious argument, from a naturalist.

[justinclift]

> The on-the-ground reality is that concern for and protection of the natural environment are relatively recent practices ...

What do you call "relatively recent"?