There is so much wrong with your argument that it would take me all day to refute it point by point, and I have better uses of my time, so let me be brief:

First, there is no such thing as "Daoism" since "Dao" and "-ism" are mutually exclusive concepts: one cannot be a partisan of the All, of that which cannot be conceptualized nor divided from what it is not. And Laozi makes this point in the opening words of the Dao De Ching: "The Dao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Dao." Because to speak of anything is to conceptualize it, which requires dividing it from what it is not.

Secondly, your distinction between "Daoism" and "humanism" is equally illusory, since you imply that humans are some how separate from, and above, "nature" and are therefore not bound by the laws of nature.

This is balderdash! We are a part of nature, not apart from it: we breathe air, eat food, procreate. are born of females, and die--like all other living organisms. And like all other organisms, we depend entirely on the healthy functioning of our incredibly complex biological support system--our living planet--whether we know it or not.

The only way we differ from other organisms is that we evolved digital language as a way of inventing and communicating concepts and propositions that gave us a competitive edge over all other multicellular organisms--but not over bacteria or viruses! And guess what? This unique gift of conceptualizing has also doomed us to an early death. This is exactly what Laozi was warning us against throughout the Dao De Ching!