Ecology vs Production

[Psywren]

Hi, I'm a Master's Student in an Animal Behavior & Conservation program and I wanted to bring up some issues I've had with the Ecology vs Production part of the test. Some of the weighting and statement phrasing does not track with data on what is most environmentally sustainable, and also the wording of ecology vs production creates a false dichotomy. Ecological preservation vs exploitation might make more sense, as one can be environmentally sustainable and increase production in the long-term, often because environmentally friendly solutions are often more efficient and less costly in the long run. Probably the best rephrasing based on how it's described in the info section of the website would be Anthropocentrism vs Ecocentrism (whether we see ourselves as linked or separated from the environment, especially in protection). However, regardless of whether the inherent scales change here are the statements I think are the issue:

These two issues are weighted inversely:

Nuclear fission, when well maintained, is a good source of energy - Nuclear fission is the most ecologically sustainable and green energy thus far created, it has caused less ecological damage than even solar and wind. The idea that it is harmful is largely propaganda developed by oil companies and astroturfing. Any person who has taken a basic environmental science college course could tell you that. Solar has issues in that their production and need for frequent replacement and wind power has had impacts on bird and bat populations, and unknown impacts on marine animal populations (although these problems with wind will probably be mitigated or at least reduced in the coming years).
https://www.ted.com/talks/isabelle_boemeke_nuclear_power_is_our_best_hope_to_ditch_fossil_fuels?language=en

GMOs should be forbidden outside research and medical purposes - this could just be a phrasing issue as privatized/unvetted GMOs I agree can be potentially harmful, however, research has demonstrated that GMOs have led to a major decrease in the use of pesticides and environmentally degrading farming practices, therefore being more environmentally conscious. So this could be rephrased as "GMOs should be required to be extensively tested before being introduced into the environment" or "GMO production should be limited to the public sector". Mostly the reason GMOs are so hated is a combination of private corporations exploiting them to make money, and anti-vaxxer types seeing them as "unnatural". However, it is just speeding up the same process that has given us the crops we utilize today. None of the crops we use looked like this 1000 years ago.
https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/gmos-and-environment

These three are unclear:

Transforming ecosystems durably to increase the quality of life of human beings is legitimate - The use of the word durably doesn't make it clear what this statement is saying, I assume it should be durability. However, the implication is unclear because it states that the reasoning for transforming ecosystems (instead of say preserving them) is to benefit human quality of life not the sustainability or strength of the ecosystem. It's also unclear what this transforming entails. The issue of humans trying to manipulate ecosystems to help them be more sustainable is a heavily controversial topic in the conservation world. Many projects, especially those trying to remove invasive species, have been accidentally more destructive to the ecosystems that they were trying to protect/strengthen. Rewilding I assume is what you are directly referring to in the statement when you say "transforming" and using the term rewilding would improve the clarity of the statement (although rewilding also can mean multiple things). A rephrase could be "The rewilding, protection, and strengthening of ecosystems is beneficial to the quality/sustainability of human life"

Space colonization is a good solution for supplying the lack of raw material on Earth (iron, rare metals, fuel...) - This one can have two different implications and I don't know if it could be rephrased. It could on the one hand mean reducing mining and environmentally destructive business practices on earth by focusing that effort off-planet. It could on the other hand mean continuing to do the mining, etc. but then also doing the space colonizing. Right now space mining is unfeasible on all counts, but theoretically it could reduce the burden on the environment. This feels more like a traditionalism vs futurism statement.

It is necessary to massively invest in research to improve productivity - This one also can have two meanings. Production research often is about being more efficient and less resource-dependent to improve productivity. This would theoretically reduce the environmental burden, hydroponics would be a good example of this, as well as the GMOs argument above. However, I could also see how research could be about increasing the rate of exploitation, such as Monsanto's use of GMOs and machinery that increases the speed of environmental destruction. Rephrasing this to get a clear dichotomy may be impossible.

This one just makes no sense in this dichotomy:

Transhumanism will be beneficial because it will allow us to improve our capacities - Transhumanism has no inherent effect on either production or the environment. This would more accurately fall on a futurism vs traditionalism or essentialist vs constructivist scale.