I can see how humans exchanged a constant exposure to nature for the safety of being surrounded by tall structures/walls, but that only contributes to my idea that there must have been some sort of genetic selection that took place for humans to get to the point where they preferred to spend a lot more time inside such structures that also resulted in changes in our attitudes towards nature. I've read a theory along similar lines about how some humans who moved to much colder places distanced themselves from nature, as in nature forced them into enclosures due to the inhospitable weather, and thus the symbiotic relationship was lost—just look at Europe, old and cold concrete urban islands everywhere, and that attitude or way of life was imposed or exported all around the planet.

It seems like a chicken/egg situation, but I can completely imagine that it will be the people who are able to survive in a civilized manner for very long periods of time inside submarines, bunkers/underground artificial habitats, and spaceships, who will create humans that will further continue to see nature as a means to an end as opposed to something that invigorates them. Many people would be very happy to have their consciousness be uploaded to a server with a running simulation of sorts, other people would be very happy at the thought of not having to grow food and simply use a food replicator a la Star Trek... these things seem like simple conveniences, but it creates additional distance between us as a species and our foundational environment. Thank you for your input, this is such an interesting topic!