Nature is a resource that provides a benefit to humans. Little things like sustenance and oxygen and filtering, etc.. Are we, as a species - as a culture perhaps -, ok with having the benefit without the resoure? Do we care how we get there? This is, of course, ultimately about accepting what is real vs. accepting a replica of what is real (more on that in an upcoming article for Environmental Leader).
I mean, are we all OK with engineering solutions to the symptoms of climate change (stronger levees, solar reflectors, etc)? I think there is a big difference. It's treating the symptom not the problem no? In some cases, terminal usually, making sure the patient is comfortable is the humane thing to do. Are were there yet? It seems that proponents of engineered solutions, mostly, prefer the argument that says "we CAN continue to live the way we do."
I've said it before: sustainability (define however you choose) is a culture problem. It's not a marketing problem, a design problem, business or science problem.
