Yes, they're straining. But they've always been, through recorded history. The only difference is that when we look back at them through 21st century glasses, the problems don't even look like problems anymore.

I mean, we stopped denuding the forests to get firewood, so a visitor from, say, 3 centuries ago would be astonished at how well wooded the land is near cities. You can canoe down the Delaware River today and feel entirely surrounded by the trees, yet around the time of the Revolution, those hills were bare.

We hunted whales almost to the point of extinction. But we came up with better energy sources, and while this was recent enough that the whales haven't quite recovered yet, they're not threatened in this manner anymore.

So you'll have to explain to me how this time it's different than the countless other times when our ancestors (look back at Malthus!) claimed that we were on the brink of disaster.

> Yes, they're straining. But they've always been, through recorded history.

You keep repeating that, but it simply isn't true. The oceans have not been straining in the pre-industrial era in the slightest.

> You can canoe down the Delaware River today and feel entirely surrounded by the trees, yet around the time of the Revolution, those hills were bare.

This is a typical anecdote that falls flat in the face of data. Look at global forestation rates in the pre-industrial era and today.

> So you'll have to explain to me

No one owes any explanation to a person who denies facts when presented with them. You made claims without evidence, therefore your claims can be dismissed without evidence.

We are numerous enough and produce enough toxins and pollution that we are close to the point where no one can escape the effects. That's why this time is different. The scale is much larger now.