It's an old science-fiction staple, too, that our engineering would eventually be able to intervene and manipulate (or "optimize") natural systems for our own purposes. Now we know better, the only way we can actually affect natural systems is by screwing them up totally. We don't know how to build a balanced ecosystem inside a building in the desert, or on a base on another planet; the idea that we can modify the planet itself to our specifications is ludicrous. What is scary is that we apparently haven't even figured out yet how NOT to screw it up, even when we're trying to be responsible.

It's a consequence of what are essentially Victorian ideas about man's relationship to nature, both from a scientific and economic standpoint. That the world is here for our benefit and that we not only have a right, but an obligation to command it to our will. To make it "rational" and "productive". The concept of "property" does not work unless the bulk of the world is already abundant and free.

This delusion continued as long as the areas under our direct control. were much smaller than the entire global ecosystem as a whole. It was easy to cover up our mistakes by just sweeping them under some adjoining wilderness. As human numbers and technical capabilities grew exponentially, it soon became apparent that we didn't really have a clue as to what we were doing.

Take my word for it, Lindy. The military has enough technical capability to know it can't do this. It's their masters in the political and economic hegemony that haven't got the message yet. Unlike the military, they are not used to facing enemies that fight back, or natural forces that are indifferent to their power.