My question is neither political nor religious, and though it assumes some sort of preassumption on whats good or bad for human development, I am not departing from, or looking for, any point view (or answers) coming from there. I am just assuming that at some point the common man is able to realize whether mankind is going in the right direction (kindness, a sustainable economy, an educated and healthy population, etc...) or the wrong one (war, disease, natural resources depletion, selfishness, etc...).

And my question is if Natures itself contains more relevant information (neglected so far) on what that course of action (for mankind) should be.

Two arbitrary examples:

-When deciding which regulated industries or markets to foster, should governments look first at what natural resources we have and then question what we can do with them (as in an economic model pushed by Nature) instead of deciding first what we want to promote and only then find the resources we need? As if we could or should rely on nature stocks and "nature intelligence" as something we can trust to tell us what our development priorities should be, because they contain "relevant and negleted clues" on what mankind should be preferably doing now? In the definition of Nature I include living human beings, and their sufferings.

-Should a wider spread of human occupation and activity across the vast habitable land be considered first than the colonization of other planets?