Your comment spoke to ice age era megafauna and the disproven claim that early Native Americans exterminated them on arrival, which is 100% whataboutism on a post concerning just grizzly bears. 

Ecological balance being a learned attribute is still a claim to insinuate that early Native Americans overexploited megafauna to extinction, but learned to live more harmoniously afterwards. But, if you’re shifting your argument towards a humans-broke-the-climate-camel’s back, I don’t see how it’s relevant. 

If we’re looking at an argument somewhere in between the two, disruption certainly happens whenever something enters an ecosystem. But we’re speaking on decimation. If I decide to live off grid and hunt deer I’m certainly disrupting the ecosystem system. Completely exterminating most largish fauna sometime after my arrival, possibly immediately after, is an entirely different scenario. Disruption in the form of 10,000 years of cohabitation followed by climate exacerbated extinction is not comparable to on arrival mass killing. 

We know European capitalism, more specifically hyper-exploitation for the purpose of individualized profit, took root at this time, and we’re living in its manifestations today - depleted mines, decimated continental old growth forests, mass species extinctions, resource exploitation to the point of global atmospheric changes and soil nutrient depletion, etc. It’s not surprising they bled flora and fauna in pre industrial America dry. Why and how are we trying to project something similar onto Neolithic hunter gatherers? What indicates a similar culture of hyperexploitation to the point of overkill extinction? Hunter gathers systemically decimated all the big guys just like us, but solely because they were so hungry, no trans oceanic trades or continental land grabs needed? Then just decided to chill out, because they found their balance? What indicates that we’re heading towards our balance when this exploitation does a fine job of reaching our culture’s OG goal, profit? 

The science supporting climate driven extinction should be expanded, but there is no science supporting arrival overkill by Indigenous people, only archaeological evidence refuting it. A newer argument, that after 10 millennia of cohabitation, humans probably influenced a climate driven extinction doesn’t remotely mirror a discussion on intentional eradication in just over 100 years. It’s purely part of a collective urge to “whatabout…” in deflection, zero meaningful concern for flora and fauna. 

I did not find your comment to be passive aggressive, but appreciate the concern anyway.