> But like all organisms, modifying our environment is how we live.
This is seemingly a tautology and/or trivially true. Of course organisms existing within and as part of an environment change it by their very existence. If there is a more profound statement here, it must be proven.
> To limit it is to limit human life.
Nope, this does not follow (even if the premise were true). False dichotomy.
Consider, if we limit the behavior of an unruly dog, are we limiting dog life? Maybe, but if we tell the dog "bad dog" when it is chewing the couch, is dog life therefore limited?
> To limit us, and not other animals, is to single out humans for punishment and degradation.
The premise is flawed, therefore the conclusion is moot. Further, this is an appeal to emotion & not reason. To which my response is, even if the premise were valid- so f'in what? Is it really a bad thing? Is human nature so good that limiting it is invariably bad? Why then do we have laws and government? What is more, why should we consider treating humans equally to other organisms as equitable? Is there no distinction between humans and other organisms?
Humans drive other species to extinction - so perhaps holding ourselves back a little (also called restraint) is not a bad thing (even if it does not feel great, it is perhaps an example of a local minima being a global maximum). The author does not discuss or acknowledge other possibilities either, which is a false dichotomy.