I don't think anyone got what I meant (which means I should express myself more clearly). If a person who deifies nature is putting forward a theory on how our 'mistreating nature' may lead to the collapse of our civilisation, then I get suspicious, merely because 'he would say that, wouldn't he?'.
Ah, in that case, it's not a fallacious argument. I would suggest reading it; while I've only gone through parts of it thus far, it's proving to be quite riveting. Also, he's not the only one who argues that the collapse of civilizations is a function of ecological sustainability practices. Jared Diamond immediately comes to mind (and he's much easier to digest because he doesn't have a theoretical ulterior motive.)
I'm surprised that the author doesn't mention Diamond even once, given the extensive bibliography at the end and that Collapse was published before he wrote this paper.