I agree there are potentially extreme and moderate versions of secular humanism, although I'm not sure how paradoxical it is to assume a duality between the natural and the artificial. The human self is natural in one sense of the word but not in another, so that's how that paradox would be resolved. Metaphysically (or methodologically), everything's natural in so far as it's scientifically explainable. So black holes are natural even though in another sense they're anti-natural, making for the dichotomy between what's inside and what's outside the hole (marked by the event horizon).
Similarly, the human mind and society are natural at one level, but anti-natural (intelligently driven and designed, and artificial) in another. So nature as the wilderness is opposed to the artificial. Some selves may be wild (e.g. psychopathic), but generally we're more or less civilized, cultivated, domesticated, and therefore artificial, not wild. Compare the distinction between livestock and wild animals.
But yes, I critique the humanist's conception of progress too (links below). I posit the monstrousness of nature-as-the-wilderness to explain the seemingly self-destructive drive towards progress. We flee into the artificial to escape the impersonality, amorality, and monstrousness of the wild.
We might moderate our consumerism, but I think that would involve reconciling ourselves somehow to the monstrous.
