To use "plunder and exploit" which didn't come around until 200,000 years ago? No? In other words, the wrong and immoral conjecture without the premise of God (i.e. God Who created man in His image, and after His likeness) would not make "exploit and plunder" wrong. For since nature has no moral dispute. For if she did/had, why then not argue on the  moral wrongs on the copulation among creatures? Or, the wrongs of the malicious/harming gases coming forth from volcanic eruption? But maybe perhaps this would be better in her courthouses: Who is at fault for the extinction of the Reptilian Race so many years ago before us - the Dinosaurs? If Nature extinct them, how is man guilty then without the moral premise he is a subject o God?