Is nature worth more attention than technology

First of all I'm sorry for not posting my argument earlier. 1.) Now I am not like con. I don't have to quote what some famous people have said because I have an opinion of my own and I intend to stand behind my words not behind other peoples believes. 2.) I don't think that con actually knows what he is saying. ( I will go to extremes for example. ) Con is saying that humans value technology more than nature. So lets say that something happens and all of the living beings on Earth suddenly die. Now lets say that technology somehow saved humans from extinction. Some people would start arguing whether or not humans should do something to save the nature. Now con believes that they would decide that Nature ain't important and they would let her die. Now oxygen would become a problem but people are smart. They would figure out a way to produce and sell it. People will in this case be living in their houses, paying taxes for oxygen and will never be able to go out without masks. Now generations would pass and people would forget about trees nature and everything. They would get used to it. But can you imagine a world with no nature? I bet that if you took a video of what the planet looks like today with the nature, trees, animals, pets and everything I bet that if you would show that video to a person in the technology based future that I described before they would start to look for a way to get it back. But I don't believe that people would chose technology over nature in the first place. But the scenario that I described is exactly what con is suggesting humans would do. 3.) Just to be clear I am not saying that we should abandon all of technology and go back to stone age. I'm just making a point that people should consider to what point is technology taking us. Because if things go on like this people will soon become slaves to technology. 4.) Con believes Nature is "a crazy bitch and a freak show" but let me just say something. We all know that kids normally have innocent minds so tell me why do they still prefer living dogs, parrots, cats to robotic ones. Because they do exist and are not that expensive. 5.) I agree with the con we are just like abusive husbands to nature. We beat her we say that she is worthless, we don't acknowledge her UNTIL we need her. Let me just say that technology has been with man (and by man I mean humanity just to be clear. I have nothing against women. ) only a couple of decades. But before all that nature was the one taking care of us, making sure we had food to eat and water to drink. So how are we not like abusive husbands to her. We used her and pretended that we love her for such a long time until we got addicted to alcohol (that stand for technology). Now a few years ago I read somewhere that we were almost hit by a wave that would destroy everything that runs on electricity. (I don't remember the details, sorry), but if that really happened if men couldn't get the alcohol (tech) their reaction would be the same as of the abusive husbands. First men would go crazy and than they would run back to nature. And she would help us regardless of our mistakes and how we are treating her now. So how can you say that nature is a freak show??? 6.) And I would also like to back up my statement "But it is hard for most of the people to resist the easy way of living that technology offers. Technology supports our laziness. And I think that this is the only reason people like it... and if you look deep into every persons heart I'm sure that they would prefer living their lives in some hut in forest by the lake without any worries, to rooms full of computers, televisions and other technologies." Con has suggested that if my statement was correct billionaires would have to abandon technology and start a different lifestyle. Now that's not true. Because if someone worked hard their whole life to get that amount of power, respect, and money they can't just throw away all of the hard work that they have done in the past and go live in nature where their money doesn't mean a thing. But that doesn't mean that they don't prefer nature to technology deep in their hearts. It is just harder for them because technology for them is easy to get and it is always easier to take a simple lazy road but not always better. But regardless of that I haven't yet heard of billionaire who wouldn't have some cottage or hut or villa somewhere outside the cities in the nature. 7.) I would just like to end my argument with this. If people were to hate nature than why do they build parks in the cities, why do we put flowers in our house, why is it considered more romantic to bring flowers to a girl instead of a new phone if people really do prefer technology.