system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Are sentient beings inherently bad for the planet they're on?

Something that's been heavily messing with my brain today is, are sentient beings inherently bad for a planet. Is having desires outside of basic instinct inherently destructive. The fact that things such as towns and city's simply exist seems inherently destructive to the planet (large areas where nature has been almost completely destroyed for human settlement).

As a species do we have a responsibility to live with the world in its natural state? Should we be tearing down our houses and live in tents in the forest? Should we be completely eliminating things like electricity and cars from our lives as they involve altering the world around us arguably more than anyone should? Or do we continue forward with a focus on harm reduction under the mindset of "sentient beings kinda rule the show"?
gpt
Why is it good that a planet be in its 'natural state'? Specifically seemingly its 'natural state' at a particularly arbitrary point in time. Perhaps we will be so destructive to the planet that we will destroy all life on the planet, thus returning the planet to something like the 'natural state' it was 4 billion years ago. There's nothing magical and perfect about earth being dominated by trees, trees emerged a few hundred million years ago, and overturned that which was before. 

I don't think anything can really be good or bad for a planet, but it's a strange kind of pessimistic or negative anthropocentrism to assume that what is 'good' for the planet is however the world happened to be 20,000 years ago.