Final answer:
The best detail to support the idea that harming nature can harm humans is the psychological benefit and the moral responsibility humans have towards maintaining biodiverse environments. The interconnectedness of human well-being and natural well-being is emphasized in both modern and ancient philosophical teachings.
Step-by-step explanation:
The detail that best supports the idea that harming nature can harm humans is the concept that humans benefit psychologically from a biodiverse world, as explained by E. O. Wilson.
He argues that human evolutionary history has shaped us to thrive in a natural environment and that disrupting these environments can lead to psychological stressors, affecting our health and well-being.
Furthermore, the moral responsibility to cause minimal harm to other species is highlighted, which is interconnected with our own success and survival.
William Baxter's anthropocentric viewpoint acknowledges that while harm to nonhuman aspects may not demand moral responsibility, a moral obligation to the environment exists due to the intrinsic connection between human interests and the natural world.
Both ancient and modern teachings, such as the Indian notion of ahimsa and Socrates's harm principle, suggest that causing harm to others or the environment ultimately leads to harm to ourselves, indicating how interconnected humans are with the natural world, and thereby supporting the idea that harming nature adversely affects human well-being.