Something about this article really rubs me the wrong way, but I can't really put it in words.

Think about that while enjoying a trip to your local zoo or arboretum — the most biodiverse places that ever existed on Earth.

So biodiversity for its own sake is something to aspire to, rather than the "artificial" notion of "natural"? (how's that for a paradox). Sure, these animals aren't in the wild, they're just living miserable lives in enclosed spaces, but hey, it's biodiversity and we made it, so we should embrace it, right?

Taking that logic to the extreme, isn't Spore the most biodiverse place that ever existed on Earth? Sure, the creatures are actually virtual and don't exist in a physical sense, but we created them, so shouldn't we embrace that as our future?

I admit to not fully grasping the author's point... but I have the feeling that I strongly disagree with it, whatever it is.

Not sure I agree 100% with the article, but here's a great line from it: Postnaturalism is not about recycling your garbage, it is about making something good out of grandpa’s garbage and leaving the very best garbage for your grandchildren

I think this covers it pretty well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

"The planet isn't going anywhere. We are."

There's a lot wrong with the article, I gave up reading it because it's mostly fluff, including this part: Current theory holds that prehistoric hunters drove these species to extinction.

Here's a Nova episode that shows the human caused extinction hypothesis to be inadequate, more likely it was an asteroid: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/clovis/

Anyway, point is, humans can rationalize anything -- or even nothing.

Sensational phrasing ("Nature is gone") gives way to a quick overview of mankind's impact on the planet throughout history. I don't see much new here in terms of either information or perspective.

What's new is a sense of managing our future comfort in a dispassionate and guilt-free way. Focus on future humans not eco-morality (which is connected, but not a necessary result.)

This is a great example of what I don't want to read, or be convinced to read by a semi-interesting title.

It's safe to read. The title is just misleading.

So no matter what we do, things will be fine? Just like the free market erasing poverty from the world? I am not convinced.

Sure, "nature" will probably survive one way or the other. But as an example, what if I happen to LIKE whales? Is it wrong to be concerned about their survival? I think not.

Not to hijack, but can people stop implying a "free market" actually exists anywhere in the world -- as long as there are governments, taxes and tolls, it is just by definition not the case, regardless of your or my opinion on this simple fact.

It depends on the viewpoint, I guess. Isn't everything a free market in a way? Like in communism, you can trade away as you want, as long as you are prepared to pay for it (with the risk of being killed or whatever).

I am actually very much pro free market, but I still think it is dangerous to assume that all things will just sort themselves out fine. They probably will - to the satisfaction of somebody. That somebody might not be you (or us), though.

Greenland a longtime ago well was green. It's a cycle!

Global warming and blah blah blah equals big business and many people are riding the wave of save the environment to riches; i.e. Al Gore.

It's uncool to say the above as the cool thing today is to be green; follow the crowd, but I believe what I believe!