>I wonder if the narrative that humans are not of nature makes it easier for us to harm the environment, since we do not feel part of it (as evidenced by our use of the word nature as some _other_).

To the contrary, there is a worldview whereby humans are not part of nature. Instead, they have dominion over it and a responsibility to care for all aspects of it as a custodian. To use a metaphor, nature without humans can never reach its full potential, just as a garden without its gardener will revert to a less ordered -- and less diverse -- state.

I think this point has merit and it’s important for us to think of ourselves as part of the environment, but also, there are lots of other animals (like most of them?) that don’t care at all about the environment and the only reason they don’t destroy it in pursuit of their vital resources is that they can’t. There are endless stories of animals eating and breeding until their ecosystems are destroyed and they suffer massive die offs. Of course that tends to happen most often to invasive species, but nature certainly does not keep itself in balance through conscientiousness.

> here are endless stories of animals eating and breeding until their ecosystems are destroyed and they suffer massive die offs.

I believe the hypothesis that we're not one of these animal species may well prove false.

> Of course that tends to happen most often to invasive species, but nature certainly does not keep itself in balance through conscientiousness.

Neither do humans. We tend to fuck things up until they become real problems, then mitigate the damage, sometimes with success. That's not really conscientious, that's "winging it". This is the true nature of the human being.