Is nature worth more attention than technology

My opponent is argument thus far can be distilled into four statement provided by Pro (see below). Let me rebut them before making my own argument against the main proposition. Pro states:1. “She [Nature] is the one that gives us unlimited supply of air and oxygen and she never demands nothing in return.” 2. “But we have to change our ways because otherwise nature will turn her back on us eventually. Sooner or later she will have enough of us treating her this way and when that day comes people will regret their actions but it will be too late.” 3. “And just by taking this common phrase to go in nature to relax.... it shows that people prefer nature over technology, because if it was the other way around people wouldn't go hiking, climbing, cycling, .....” 4. “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’s rebuttals:1. First, “air and oxygen” are not unlimited. In addition, the history of the earth as a planet reveals that existence is mercurial, random and often ends in extinction. 98% of all species that ever existed on Earth have gone extinct. [1] Neil deGrasse Tyson in Cosmos addressed this along with the “five great extinction events” in a recent episode of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey.[2] 2. The “she never demands nothing [anything]” at the end of claim one as well as claim two emphasize this anthropomorphic view of Mother Nature. While Pro implies Mother Nature is some kind of kind benevolent and gentle force, the opposite is actual true. Slavoj Zizek recently dissuaded the naiveté that some delight in when they talk about environmental catastrophe, namely “we are all guilty, we exploited too much, we weren’t feminine enough. All this is bs [edited to meet the standards of DDO]. Why? Because it makes the situation “safer.” If it is us who are the bad guys, all we have to do is change our behavior. But in fact Mother Nature is a crazy bitch.” [3] What Zizek goes on to say is that think about the ecological catastrophe and sheer destruction that took place and lead to large fossilize deposits that are now the source for fuel. More specifically, what he is trying to get at and what I will argue is that Mother Nature is a freak show of contingent disturbances with no inner rhyme or reason. The version that Pro argues is that nature is a pure idyllic creation. Nature conceived as the balanced cycle of life is a human fantasy. 3. Pro infers (incorrectly, I will argue) that since “go in nature to relax” is used, one will reach concluded that people “prefer nature to technology.” The claim and the reason seem to be lacking and evidence absent, at least here. Con argues the fact that the two most significant events in human civilization, the Agricultural Revolution and the more recent Industrial Revolution should make one conclude that people prefer technology. Whether it the technology of agricultural production or production of the steam engine. This might be distasteful but what Pro appears to argue is analogous to the one many abusive husbands make: “look baby, I don’t mean to hit you when I get drunk. But you know I love you. Don’t these flowers, jewelry, signs of affection prove that?” Pro, at least of abuses to nature, seems to say, “My darling, my darling, because you prefer to buy me thing, relax and share moments with me prove you're the only man I could ever love.” 4. Of Pro’s major arguments, the fourth one strikes me as the least plausible. First Pro claims by way of conjecture that people only enjoy technology because it supports our own penchant for laziness. My counterargument would be the result from typing in the word inventor and innovation in a google search. However, Pro goes on to say: “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 argues okay, but maybe we should give the heart too much create, rather maybe we should rely on real-world indicators, like say, what people actually do. I would Pro point four if a billionaire (a person with virtually unlimited resources at their disposal) actual bought a large swath of land somewhere—in reality their own estate—and became nomadic hunter-gatherers. The reason is that a billionaire, especially if they believed in living out their hearts desire could probably hire horticulturalists, ecologists, and experts to artificially create an environment as close to “nature,” as they wanted but none seems to do that. This proves Pro’s claim is demonstrably false, otherwise wouldn’t I do know some high net worth individual actually attempt this lifestyle. [1] George S. Fichter, Endangered Animals. (USA: Golden Books Publishing Company, 1995), 5. [2] Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, "Some of the Things That Molecules Do," episode 2 (originally aired March 16, 2014). [3] Liz Else from New Scientist interview with Slavoj Zizek, Verso books (Zizek’s publisher) has the quote here: http://www.versobooks.com...-s-new-scientist-interview-the-revolution-will-not-be-on-facebook