The thing to understand about nature is that it is made up of complex systems that have evolved into finely balanced equilibria. Our reductionist science only works well in linear systems where variables are cleanly separable, which complex systems by definition are not. Thus tinkering with nature under the assumption that it is a linear system is likely to have lots of unintended consequences. That is why science's track record in promoting health is so abysmal, and our agriculture is completely unsustainable.

The only way to really evolve a complex system is to make a lot of small gradual changes, constantly course correcting as you go.

>Previous generations were more cohesive.

I disagree with that. The majority of opinions in previous generations were discounted. A small percentage of people in power said: "We want this, therefore we will have it, and the rest will be damned".

We look more at the negative effects that our overreaching plans have on groups in the minority and on the environment itself. There is no such thing as a grand vision that doesn't have an unwanted effect on some group. It's much harder to unilaterally enforce a vision when everybody gets to voice their opinion.

Once you cut down all the trees you've got yourself a big ass problem, doesn't matter if a world without trees is more "natural" or not.

Case in point, all the CEOs and big-money managers who benefit from the mining and extracting businesses buy their (big) residences in pretty "natural" places, surrounded by water and lots of greenery. I'm pretty sure they and their kids don't live in the areas affected by their companies' non-natural dealings.

> We're never going to achieve anything great again...

Wikipedia, the open source, and even massive online communities such as reddit are great things.