Well certainly if you consider nature as a thing. Nature as an object can only be altered from one of its states to another. Whether the alteration is appropriate now, theres the question. At what point is a state change unnatural? When theres a mind behind it? Or when the change becomes mono-directional.
If you consider nature as the process, you get a rather different set. Nature as the processes of life and decay in tandem, would then care more that the wheel of life and death keeps turning, and with variation to make it resilient. A lot of what people consider nature tend to be cyclical processes, the turning of the seasons, the water cycle, the cycle of birth, growth, decay and death, even the food chain.
This approach lets you distinguish between the elemental and natural processes. Element(air, fire, earth, water, life and death) are primal, but they tend to be static and are used by the cycle, but not inherently part of it.
So in this perspective, one cycle(civilization) is causing a multitude of other cycles(the environments in the displaced areas) to stop, while itself imbalanced and unsustainable. Therefore, you exert influence to break that cycle, while others can still recover, rather than ending in a terminal state.
If you consider nature as the combined relationships of all things in nature, then you have the balance factor to consider. Like the above, individual things all within nature, but the health of the whole overrides the health of the component.