Sustainability is a great idea, yay for smartly doing things. I'm a conservationalist, i believe in doing things the best way for the situation, not a preservationalist which says DO NOT TOUCH YOU PLANT RIPPER OUTERS! YE SCUM OF EARTH HOW DARE YOU TOUCH NATURE!

So, sure that's a good idea and maybe the article has some good points. But i'm taking a stance of do you want to be taken seriously? If you want people who will blindly believe the rant of a person who things they have all the answers then cool, stay like that.

If you want an informed public who value reputability of an article then you need to find some f-ing sources for your completely unsupported claims. You use "if and then" arguements without supporting any of your basic claims, expecting your audience to assume they are true, blindly. Its bullshit rantings until then.

Sooo many logical fallacies in it too, nice little slippery slope of people becoming machines, s/he leaves only one option as the future result of actions. It's an analytical nightmare and a mess.