The argument
Some environmentalists propose a comparison: "Imagine a world full of plastic trees, completely controlled by humans, but where animals suffer less. Wouldn't that be absurd? So nature has value in itself."
The trick in the word "plastic"
The author shows that the word "plastic" makes the idea seem ugly on purpose. It suggests that anything changed by humans would always be worse and artificial.
But imagine another scenario: an ecosystem that, from the outside, looks just like a natural one, with trees, rivers, and mountains. The only difference is that it has certain measures in place that make animals suffer less. We only know it was changed because of those measures.
Would that place be worse just because it had human help?
A common prejudice
It's hard to imagine a human action that makes animals' lives better than in untouched nature. That's because we're used to thinking "human action = worse outcome for animals." That's often true, because of exploitation. But it doesn't have to be that way.
Think about medicine: it's a human intervention in nature, and it makes people suffer less.
In short
- The word "plastic" makes the idea seem worse than it is.
- A changed environment can look like a natural one and be better for animals.
- The idea that human action always makes things worse is a prejudice.