Overall, I consider humanity to be more important than the environment but we depend on the environment for life and it will always be stronger and more resilient than humanity.

If we become too great a threat, the environment will reject (destroy) us. We do not, and will not, have the ability to destroy the environment in the foreseeable future.

Since I believe in our supreme importance, I believe in reasonable caution and I certainly believe that we should avoid technological activity that does more damage to us than it does to environment. The polluted landscapes created by the Chinese are perfect examples of crime against humanity.

Without technology we are in a no win cycle. Over population is the crux of the matter. Our numbers will increase until we are culled back to a manageable number. This would likely involve loss of technology and continued futility.

The answer is to use technology to spread humanity throughout the galaxy and arrive at point where over population ceases to be an unmanageable problem. As we move toward that goal we should focus on the damage we do to humanity and this will automatically benefit the environment. We should never focus on the environment at the expense of humanity's progress.

Saying this is easier than doing it and there will be setbacks but I am an optimist when it comes to humanity. We know that there are billions of worlds out there but as far as we know humanity is unique.

Life is like panning for gold, it requires rhythm.

The wild card: If, as some have suggested, we eventually evolve to be machines instead of organics, Is a living planet of any benefit to machines?