And, why not, there is a problem.

In concious life there is the community, cultures and the daily routine in the perception of human reality.

There is a biosphere, containing all living, dead and lifeless elements. It is a homeostasis, a dynamic banlance with an enourmous buffer and self repairing mechanisms.

And, why not, there is a problem.

The way Homo Sapiens has shaped his own world kicks the natural order of things, the strong but delicate homeostasis, out of balance. There is too much strain on the system. The system is very tough. It will not collapse easily, but if it does, it goes down hard. And that system, that biosphere is, for now, our one and only basis and validation for our existence.

There are some things fundamentally wrong with the way we go about. Here's one:

(Bio-)Chemistry.
In modern day industry we use as much as about 20.000 different chemical compounds. Of wich a vast number is synthesized and a great number is persistent even after it tuned into waste. In the 40's, 50's and 60's a huge amount of polymers, insect-, herb- and pesticides were synthesized. At first welcomed and rewarded with Nobel-prizes and a lot of cheers. Until the devastating side effects of a lot of these compounds manifested them selves. They proved to be anything from harmfull to instantly lethal to humans and/ or the environment.
There are virtually no restrictions for the chemical industry in producing these harmfull substances. Nor
could our way of life survive a day without them. We 'depend' on them.
You could state that there is a ban on the production of halogenated chlorin compounds (CFC's), that DDT is no longer produced and PCB's are well on their way to be banned world wide. Thus we are moving in the right direction.
But. There are a lot of compounds with similar chemical properties. Probably or proven with the same harmfull effects too. Produced without any restrictions.
There is no need for the industry to prove a compound harmless before it can be produced. There is a need to prove it harmfull to have it banned. So we do research, conclude it's harmfull and have, for instance a EU commision to deal with the legal side of it. But this commision functions so slow that it has judged 5 (five!) compounds so far. It will take untill the 27th century to go though all the compounds now in use.

Get the picture?

In the mean time we are emmitting known and unknown harmfull compounds in to the biosphere. You can track what's emitted year by year what is emitted by examining polar ice. I could bore or exite you with a lot more interesting names of chemical compounds, but the bottom line is the impact these compounds have on ecosystems and individual biota. Some of these toxins work on the nerve-system. Malfunction of body-fuctions as a result. Others cripple the liver, the personal chemical factory of an organism. This organism will intoxicate itself. You can imagine the field of ecotoxicology is complex and vast.

In the mean time the problem lasts, emmisions increase over time and compounds persist in the biosphere from anything from half an hour to centuries. Part of them is harmfull to organsims, they accumulate in the food-chain untill they reach a lethal concentration.
Some compounds react with others. Thus altering the availability of compounds. School example are the CFC's, catalising the degradation of ozone in the higher segments of the biosphere. Ozone is there to filter sunlight from harmfull wavelengths of light. Some alter the availability of nutrients in soil by fixating them or mobibilising them.

There is more than meets the eye. And things are wrong in this chapter on a very basic level.

What this boils down to:
'Not harmfull until proven harmfull.'
Now that is unkind.

That short sightedness is the result of the dominance and ignorance of ego, caught in a erroneous conception of time.