[vouaobrasil]

I love wildlife and the natural world, and technology is utterly dependent on destroying it via mining. The directions we go in shouldn't be determined based on just whether they are interesting. They also need to be constrained based on whether they are sustainable. You obviously don't care much about the negative environmental effects of technological development.

By the way, I am not defeatist because:

1. I think we can make great progress, only progress towards rewilding nature

2. I only consider technology a dead-end, not humanity! I believe we can move past arbitrary technological development and discard our consumerist ways.

[Wissenschafter]

A mine is just as natural as an antill. It's your perspective that is the unnatural one.

Humans are not separate from the nature we exist in.

[pseudonamed]

Indeed, we aren't separate; that does not mean that swimming in an acid mine lake is equivalent to swimming in a clear glacial lake... one is more likely to kill you than the other.

You mentioned studying philosophy, you're confusing your ontological and epistemological positions.

[vouaobrasil]

In that case, we should just eradicate all life on this planet because any action we do is natural....

...or, we could actually evaluate the transition of life from natural to technological. Yes, in a philosophical sense, you are right, what we do is "natural". But then if we just say everything we do is natural, then we might as well just do nothing. But there are still meaningful distinctions between the technological human organization (even if natural) and the rest of the world, and we would do well to examine if what we are doing is really harmonious with everything-but-us -- because if not, then I reject it outright even if it is natural in the sense that you describe.

Your wordplay is really not very impressive.