It's true that we've increased the scale by an order of magnitude. or two. And it's probably true that it's not going to be pretty.
But it's no more or less "natural" than ever. "Natural" is probably not that useful a concept in general, it doesn't really mean anything in general, just like it doesn't mean anything on your food label.
> Both politics and the economy remain subject to persistent re-naturalization campaigns, whether from religious fundamentalists in politics or from market fundamentalists in economics.
Indeed, the whole concept of "the natural" is arguably always a right-wing and reactionary one. Used by people generally under a fantasy about what things _really_ "used to be" like, and that it was "always" that fantasy from forever until recently. I don't think it's a useful concept, I think it's downright dangerous when the fudamentalists start thinking they know what's "natural" (and thus, they assume, "good") and what isn't. But "sustainable" might be a useful concept for evaluation. As well as simply "good for humans", which is obviously subjective and a political question (a question of values and interests), instead of the feigned objectivity of "the natural". There's values and interests in the "re-naturalization" programs of fundamentalists and radical reactionaries too, despite their protestations to the contrary.
tldr: I think things are going to shit too, but thinking there's such a thing as 'the natural' and you know what it is, tends to make it worse.