To an extent this is inevitable - we could never survive in any environment by living a passive existence. Survival is attained through a constant struggle of exerting out influence on our environment in order to exploit the resources that we need to survive. As such I do not think that any but the most pampered could genuinely believe that we are truly "one with nature" - we are competitors, always. We are a social animal, and so a large factor in our success as a entity of peoples (town, city, country, race) depends on our ability to cooperate mutually with one another, thus resulting in a human-centric basis for moral worth. This is still the predominate viewpoint (see relgions, for example - "love thy neighbor").
As much as some environmentalists may not want to think of things this way, I think the environmentalism movement is driven largely from an increased scarcity and competition over resources. Hunter-gatherer societies, for example, don't place much emphasis on environmentalism because they're ability to radically change their surroundings by their activities is limited. As we continue to run out of fuels to use and food to eat and water to drink, societies will increasingly have more environmental concerns, and can gradually change their behaviors slowly. But this is not driven by improvements in education or a superiority of cultures or merely a *perceived* increase in our destructive changes to the environment - it is driven by the significant increase in our actual detrimental impact on the environment.