>>1924730>>1924735Depends on so many different factors it would be difficult to write a proper answer in the space of even a few posts.
What is your understanding of "peaceful coexistence", for starters?
Why do you judge it ok for non-human or 'natural' factors to bring or cause change?
Why do you specifically, attach sentimental value to locations, flora and fauna, or even ecosystems as a whole?
Do you understand that as a species, humans would have to overcome mental blocs that have developed naturally over thousands of years of evolution?
You call humans a 'cancer' or 'parasite' upon nature, yet these things in broad terms are a fundamental part of all large-scale ecosystems?
I'm genuinely curious OP; I see threads like these every now and then and whilst on a personal level I honestly 'care about the environment', I cannot genuinely fathom the existential despair many appear to face upon learning to even some degree what their species is capable of
