Yeah, this seems to be yet another of the misanthropic arguments about how nature is inherently good, and how humanity is inherently corrupting, without making any attempt to justify these beliefs.

I think it's more narcissistic than misanthropic; it presupposes that we are something distinct and apart from the "natural" world. A bird building a nest is "natural", a human building a house is "un-natural". In this worldview, we are a fundamentally and categorically unique kind of living thing. Our behaviour is not that of a highly evolved mammal, but of a lesser god.

In as much as we resemble cancer, yes, I struggle to see how the human species works in harmony with the rest of nature, as it exists on Earth. If we want to say we're a part of nature, we should consider modifications that are improvements or at least not wholesale dismantling of planet-wide ecosystems, all in the neurotic hope that science will come in at the last moment or save the day. Or guns will. Or spaceships will. None of them seem likely to. At least not save anything beyond the dregs at the bottom of the barrel.

Before all the cyanobacteria turned up, earth had a nice inert atmosphere. They start with their newfangled photosynthesis and suddenly the atmosphere is full of this horribly reactive oxygen stuff. Now the planet is crawling with life, irreparably damaging the unspoilt beauty of our natural geology. You can hardly find a piece of rock on the planet that doesn't have algae or lichen all over it. Cyanobacteria ruined this planet for their own selfish ends.

Not to mention that they caused a massive extinction, eradicating most species that can't handle oxygen, except a few survivors that stuck to a few low-oxygen niches.

Nature does not work in harmony with nature. Natures eats other natures.

Nature is brutal and ugly from an ethical standpoint. Eat or be eaten. Poison, trap, munch, crunch. --And one does not generally observe moral behavior among animals, one does not observe 'selfless' acts of compassion to other species. Con-specifics can be the target of some 'selfless' acts, but in fairly limited scopes.

The only reasons we look at nature and see harmony and beauty are 1)we enjoy patterns 2) we enjoy colors 3)not many things eat us anymore.

Exactly. We only think empathy, kindness and gentleness are important because of our social-mammal-centric viewpoint. We only think nature is "nice" and "good" because we're largely no longer the victims of it.

It's a ridiculous argument because Mars is a sterile* desert, and the plan would be to fill it with nature.

(* New evidence may come up in future to contradict this, and that might require a change in the plans depending on the form that Martian life takes and how widespread it is)

We could start by not breaking earth, which has lots of life and beauty

If you actually look closely at life on Earth, you'll notice that historically it's been pretty damn ugly for everyone involved. Now, with modern technology, medicine, and more stable, peaceful social structures, it's alright for a fair minority of humans. We still have some refinements to make but a "natural life" is horrible and I want no part of it. Nature's only beautiful when viewed from a safe vantage point, a long way away.

By extension, I wonder if he's also against every technological development (or development in general) since Aristotle.

Those ancient Greeks, spoiling the native landscape with their olive groves, and vineyards, and sheep gazing on the hillsides \s

We have to go further back ... Aaaaaah, what's that caveman doing drawing on the walls of this pristine grotto?

Goddamn plants, poisoning the air with this "oxygen" stuff.