1. Do you agree or disagree with the suggestion that, from an environmental perspective, were we always a doomed species? By that, I mean has our unique development of and reliance upon ever-more complex technologies (starting with sticks and fire) -- and the exploitation of resources they entail -always thrust us into conflict with nature? Give your reasons.
2. Even Lovelock ends on an optimistic note: "How could anyone be a pessimist and imagine that the global heating crisis is the end for us or Gaia? We will probably both survive and from our descendants could evolve the wiser species that could live even closer in Gaia and perhaps make her the first citizen of our Galaxy". With this in mind -- and given the fact that our industrial mode of life of the past 250 years represents less than 0.2% of our existence as a species -are you optimistic or pessimistic about our very long-term prospects for survival? Explain why.