Even if you're convinced by arguments of naturalness (which I'm not), in this case it makes no sense, because you're not messing with nature, you're trying to return nature to a previous state before humans interfered.
"Those of you who volunteered to be injected with praying mantis DNA, I've got some good news and some bad news. Bad news is we're postponing those tests indefinitely. Good news is we've got a much better test for you: fighting an army of mantis men. Pick up a rifle and follow the yellow line. You'll know when the test starts."
I mean, this isn't news to those of us that write code.
Not that I would worry in this case.
It "proves too much" in argument jargon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species#Favorable_e...
It appears that a "gene drive" was introduced into the Florida Keys in this case, and that is much more targeted and specific to a species that it is intended to destroy.
Ever read on the idea that most megafauna was hunted down by men?
Yeah... that seems pretty erhm, "unnatural", therefore the entire rest of the world is "unnatural"
Supposedly the tsetse fly was local to a very small area of Africa, yet during the 1700 and 1800 during colonialism it spread onto the rest of the continent, before that the continent was quite settled with larger farm fields in respective areas, but the tzetze fly disrupted all that
Anyhow just wanted to say that "nature" and "natural" once one starts digging more are not really "useful" descriptions, because the world is complex and not an idealized scenario