World GDP grows every year, that is - we are making more products out of nature than the previous year. Shouldn't this mean that GDP essentially increases by reducing nature? Whether we cause exorbitant pollution i.e. in our face visible kind or not, the scale of human activity on account of its population is bound to disturb the nature. For nature nothing is pollution - it's just physical elements in circulation. Humans just change the form of resources as they exist in nature to their utlilty, and call them products, trade in them as per some rules, exclude many through tools of price and control of ownership, create symbolic notion of wealth by ability to own these modified parts of nature.
But right now I would want to understand whether GDP increase is a euphemism for reduction in nature? May be the latter phrase would have been used by plants and animals if only they could express themselves on this count? Is their any point in conserving animal and plant species if they are on a one-way path to extinction? Or do we conserve them from extinction to survive in their company till the day humans learn to survive on their own in isolation - the time when we won't need nature? Is growth a zerosome game of humans vs naure? Was shifting to agriculture a mistake? or moving to cities would be counted as the start of deterioration on doom's day? Is GDP growth a ticking tim bomb for nature?