Silly environmental stuff

To start I have nothing against environmental science, it's the environmental religion I oppose. I've been marking some environmental papers and Man have I come across some rather silly remarks that I thought I'd share.
-Cities are lonely(!?!) I can't begin to fathom this one...
-Our technology has made us slaves working too much. This is nonsense. A few centuries ago most people were farmers, a 7 day workweek job! Maybe in the 1950's, but compared to today, we work less (remember we passed legislation to make sure we don't work more that 44 hours)
-Having animals as pets is immoral (animal liberation people). This is soo silly. If there is one thing most of us with pets are guilty of is caring too much for the pet and not enough for other humans. Most of us send our dogs for spa's, medical care and lavish meals, treats and affection on them. It is a sad fact that my dog (and almost all dogs I know) have better lives than most poor people in the whole world!
-Human's have lost "something" by living in cities away from nature. Nature is very nice to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. It's damp, dirty full of bugs and poisonous lizards and cold. If our ancestors could live like us they would in a heart beat. This is probably a deeper problem that fundamentalist environmentalists pray on (if I were to wager it would have something to do with most people not completing projects only pieces of projects and so missing the satisfaction of whole job well done). But I can agree that we lost predators, diseases (yes some people still live in nature and die from it, see Africa/Asia/S.America) and high infant mortality.

There are problem with our way of living, it is clearly too destructive to be sustainable, but that does not justify misusing science and tricking people. But it is unacceptable for us to move backwards (no one will give up our quality of life and especially our infant mortality), so help push forward. Saying the earth is a sacret place to be revered etc only cheapens the arguement (and is simple to refute since 5 mass extinctions have happened and more will happen unless humans stop them). Economics is the management of finite resources and the earth must not be viewed as a reservoir but a finite resource. That's how to find solutions. For example, it cost a certain amount to dump waste in a sanitary landfill (which isn't as bad as fundamentalist environmentalists would have you think) but not into a river or the air. Clearly it should cost giving an incentive to not do it! All that is required is a denial of the equality argument (all people should have equal access to all consumer goods) and some stuff will become more expensive but then less people will use it. If the cost is reflective of the damage to a resource then yes some poor people won't be able to afford some stuff because now it costs more (see why we need to throw away the equality argument) due to pollution laws but that's how demand/damage is kept low.

To say we are "removed" from nature and then deny human nature to consume, collect and modify their environment is a logical fallacy.