I think the commenter is not talking about the validity of climate change or environmental damage, but about the troubles of assigning which is “nature” and “anti-nature”. This dialectic isn’t really helpful to really solve the problem since that if you assign “anti-nature” as both human and corrupt, then the natural argument goes to Malthusian control of populations (believing the existence of “more humans” in itself as dangerous and shaping societal organization within this limited framework)
Instead, I suggest we opt for throwing away the concept of “anti-nature”, and instead acknowledge that humanity is part of nature. What has changed over history is that we are active agents in changing the totality of nature instead of being passive agents only being “affected” by it. This creates a more optimistic path towards a better future, since while it acknowledges that we have the capacity to destroy ourselves it also creates hope that we have the agency to actually “change” nature itself towards a direction we desire. Welcome to the anthropocene… (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene)
Instead, I suggest we opt for throwing away the concept of “anti-nature”, and instead acknowledge that humanity is part of nature. What has changed over history is that we are active agents in changing the totality of nature instead of being passive agents only being “affected” by it. This creates a more optimistic path towards a better future, since while it acknowledges that we have the capacity to destroy ourselves it also creates hope that we have the agency to actually “change” nature itself towards a direction we desire. Welcome to the anthropocene… (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene)