A quick google top result check shows: "all natural phenomena and plant and animal life, as distinct from man and his creations"
I dare say that's the way it was used and intended so semantics doesn't really bring anyone forward here.
I'm also not really sure what you're alluding to with the "us vs then" bit.
There is no shortage of humans. Arguably too many.
There is a shortage of nature. On top of that, the ecosystems are changing, and once they're gone they're probably not coming back.
We could lose half of the population tomorrow and still, eventually, hit that predicted 10 billion souls -- it would just take a lil longer. If WA and BC turn into chaparral things like Salmon and Snow Crab ain't gonna live there any more, and never live there again.
You make it sound like it's a maths problem, and that we have to abuse humans or nature but must chose at least one
All I'm saying is if you stop eating cheap sea food we won't have to send underpaid humans to risk their lives to catch them. Put you money where your mouth is
Can we not admit we’re fucked and any effort at this point is to take the edge off the pain we’re going to experience globally over the next century or two?
