I thought it was an interesting article in many respects, especially the section on Pripyat near Chernobyl. It led me to Google more information on the subject.

Regarding humans being natural, I think that we're quite natural and by extension so are our actions. Therefore and along that line of thought, we as a species will eventually bow to the laws of nature. Once an organism overextends itself and outstrips its resources or makes the environment inhospitable to itself, it moves on or dies off. That's nature. That's us. The difference, I believe, is that it will eventually be up to us to decide whether we move on or die off entirely.

Nothing continues on in an upward manner in perpetuity. The best we can hope for is a balance and I fear few of us are truly striving for that, myself included. Also, there are not too many forces out there keeping us wholly in check.

The difference between human beings and other natural species is the capacity of understanding, the ability to imagine the possibilities and theorize about an action's consequences. Just as it is natural for us to think, so too is it natural for us to act on our more primal instincts to consume, multiply and be concerned only for ourselves. Unfortunately and to our own detriment, it often feels that the primal takes precedence over all else in our lives.

It could be argued that in our capacity of understanding and imagination we can often be wrong, but it seems to me that a "better safe than sorry" approach might be a good course of action until the outcome can be known. The ETS forums are concerned with the "what ifs" even though a good portion of us prepare for things that may never happen. I mean, I carry a PSK with me when I'm out even though I rarely stray further than a days walk back to my home, and there are innumerable options between here and whatever theoretical trouble spot I find myself in.

It can also be argued that our abilities have gotten us out of situations that we did not see coming, but I don't know how long it is reasonable to expect that we can do so as we progress.

On invasive species and their impact on different environments, human beings are an invasive species in many respects. We've gone beyond our natural habitat because our natural ability to think has given us the capabilities to move beyond those regions. I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing it just means that we can work faster than evolution and outpace natural balance. So, I think we have to artificially limit ourselves.

On the world being better off without humans, that could go either way, but there are some areas of thought on how we can help an environment grow even stronger than it could in its natural state. A collective name for this endeavor escapes me at the moment, but if you're interested in the subject, look up "Native American Forestry" or "Tribal Forestry".

When it comes to thoughts about humans having an impact on the environment, I am left with little doubt at this point. During the day I can walk into a city and feel the heat trapped in and reflected off of all of the concrete, and then travel to a forest 20 miles away shortly afterward and easily feel the difference in a lower temperature. I could then return to that same city at night and feel heat being released from what was gathered during the day, and once more go back to the forest and actually get a chill because of the wide temperature swing. If we can trap that kind of heat in an area with concrete I don't feel it's a stretch to think we can trap heat on a larger scale with a combination of things including greenhouse gasses. I realize that it's two different effects happening, but that we may very well be the common denominator in the equation.

I'm not bashing human beings at all. We've done some spectacular things. However, I'm not saying we're perfect by any stretch of the imagination. It's not that we are inherently bad, but rather that we can do bad things from time to time.

As always, I could be wrong.