Almost everything humans do at scale interacts with the environment. The perspective of just not interacting with the environment anymore is a fantasy. We need to learn to wield the environment skillfully, instead of clumsily waving it around. We cannot just "stop" having an effect on the environment.
Nobody is proposing we "not interact with the environment anymore." That is a straw man.
The idea is to mitigate our impact on ourselves and the environment by reducing consumption. We already have widespread understanding that reduction of resource usage is the most environmentally beneficial change we can make.
I didn't mean it as an attack specifically on the parent comment, sorry if it came across that way. What I mean about the perspective "not interact with the environment anymore" is that many/most people describe the environment as something that exists above and around us. Something that is best left undisturbed and interacted with as minimally as possible by human life.
I am proposing that this perspective has run its course. It is clear that human behavior can have a very broad impact, so we should aim to learn to work with the environment for the better.
This means learning how to intervene on "natural" (whatever that means) environmental processes such that they tip in our favor (ecological engineering).
That depends. Is it too unnatural to go and plant millions of trees? What about culling populations of deer (as we do here in Scotland) to prevent the erosion of forestry (deer love to graze on saplings)? What about the introduction of new species to restore ecological balance? These things work when we get them right. I'm proposing that we get better at it, instead of giving up.
No that only shows we can change the climate, not engineer it to best suit humanity.