I find I cannot agree with anything covered under Natural Law, or Teleology, because of the fact that the author or any of the works outlined by him cover human evolution as being "natural" or that humans are even considered a species or natural. Not including humans in the debate on whether to use a teleological basis creates huge holes in certain arguments. For example, if we are to completely abandon a certain amount of land and let the area "naturally" return to what the landscape used to be, how can we describe that as natural? Different points in history probably had different types of land in different states. A prairie could have been a small pond or lake in the past. Would letting the prairie flood during a particular time present a natural state? Who decides what natural truly is? What if being back in a natural state hurts the surrounding population?
Our history says that humans have always been foragers, explorers, hunters and gatherers who do what must be done to survive. Since doing so is a part of our DNA, then is harvesting land, building and, sadly, destroying, certain parts of the land around us perfectly acceptable according to evolution and thus teleological thinking? We seem to forget that we are indeed a part of the ecosystem around us, but that we are not including ourselves in talking about "nature" and returning areas to a "natural state". And since not including ourselves in creating a natural state seems to be more so backwards thinking than forwards, we should rethink how to outline what we should do for the future of our environment. Thinking more earth friendly and taking part in reducing our waste in all areas seems perfectly acceptable when talking feasibility. Returning areas to truly "natural states" sounds too fictitious and against human nature to consider.
