Habitat Loss

 One fundamental issue recent posts have been grappling is the ecological (in terms of species destruction and decimation) cost of expanding human land use.

I have opined that at least when well done (with as little local ecological cost as feasible...not 'fast tracked') some local loss is acceptable if well designed to stop greater global ecological loss.

The overall principle could be described as 'habitat loss.'  We want to minimize that, both by using as little land as we can (and with as little degradation and decimation as we can), and by preserving the environment within every habitat globally as well.  Ultimately we should look at what everything needed (not just here) does everywhere (not just here).

You could think of it either as preserving species or preserving habitat, both are sort of equivalent.

Generally, humanity has operated on the 'it's all there for us' principle.

All There includes the atmosphere, the water, even outer space.

We need to operate on the 'we'll disturb as little as we can' principle, leaving the natural system of our planet as undisturbed as possible.

Our greatest achievements are not in vastness of material, but rather in the depth and inner beauty of our art, science, and social consciousness, and that's what our future aims should be more like.

Other animals may operate on the 'it's all there for us' principle.  But all others are held in check somehow, most often by predators, sometimes by hostile environments, and almost always by lack of resources.  We've exceeded those limits by technical means.  Now only total catastrophe for the planet can come from our future population or economic growth, if not present size.