> Creating an idea takes practically no effort. I can do it right now: let's fix global warming by lassoing passing ice comets and dropping them in the ocean.

Right, so we’re just going to ignore the fact that all of these ideas had to be tested in field, and work well enough to ensure the society that builds them continues to survive, including preserving its local environment so it isn’t forced to continually move as it forever strips its local environment of useful resources. I guess you also believe that borrowing any ideas from nature is also a waste of time because evolution doesn’t bother documenting its design process?

> There's not reason to think the purposes are the same

If the goal is ecological sustainability then I’ve already outlined a number of reasons why the incidental purposes would meet that goal. The intended purpose is irrelevant if environmental conditions force designs to be ecologically sustainable (and I’ve already outlined why that might be the case).

> So, for example, the Chinese don't have some of the most polluted cities in the world, right? They're not Europeans, so their propensity to destroy the environment (including their own living spaces) is lesser.

I never claimed that non-European cultures don’t damage the environment, that seems to be something you’re intent on reading into my words. I’m afraid there’s nothing I can really do to help you there.

Obviously other cultures damage the environment, and if you read my comments you’ll notice I even agree that reduced environmental damage is probably a consequence of lack of means, rather than a deliberate attempt at preservation. But European cultures have the longest and best documented history of environmental destruction, not because Europeans are special or evil or any other crap you've accused me of implying, but simply because they’ve had the most time and means to damage the environment. Simple consequences of the Industrial Revolution starting in Europe, nothing more.

> That's only because they had been doing the same things for hundreds if not thousands of years, and at small scale without powered tools. There was practically no chance they could have screwed the environment to bad they would have died out

Yes, that is literally the point I’m trying (and apparently failing) to get across.

> If your argument is "returning to a pre-industrial lifestyle will be good for the environment" then I agree with you, but I don't think that's in the cards.

Close, but not quite. More like we shouldn’t simply dismiss designs and practices created by less developed cultures, or pulled from the annals of time simply because they lack documentation and weren’t built following the scientific method. Those designs clearly solved useful problems, and did so in innovative way that were sympathetic to their environment out of necessity. Just like biomimicry is a valid design approach (and I note that evolution is legendary for its lack of documentation, and well understood goals), copying and borrowing designs and practices from indigenous cultures, where those cultures have co-evolved with their local environment over hundreds to thousands of years, also has huge value.

I really don’t understand why you’re finding it so hard to believe that a cultures designs and practices might be heavily influenced by its local environment, and likely achieves some level of equilibrium with its local environment given time. And that maybe, just maybe there might be something to learn.

> I imagine people are looking for solutions that fit into our existing society, not to tear everything down and start over.

We’re talking about whether or not indigenous structures and designs might be a good approach to long term conservation of a local environment, not “are we all just doing life wrong and need to start again”. If we’re looking for way to conserve what’s left, then why the hell would we blanket ignore the approaches developed by people who were forced to conserve simply to survive?