Those civilizations did not grow large enough to have such impact. It was not because they were better stewards of nature out of enlightenment.
Human nature is human nature, it can happen anywhere and with anyone. If there is one thing that is uniquely associated with Western dominance though it is capitalism which unleashes the greedy part of human nature, and by competition it tends to outgrow all other ways of life (as we see now), even without the intensely aggressive way in which it proselytizes itself through violence.
The phrase human nature invokes thoughts of an unstoppable, universal force; a truism of homo sapiens. And perhaps if I was brought up within the appropriate environments, and with unparalleled amounts of power potential, I too would, in a matter most unstoppable, embody the nature we are talking about.
But a vast majority of humans are never in such a position.
And a vast majority of humans suffer under the oppression of such people.
Adaptability under oppression might be human nature - it is, in fact, a widely experienced piece of the larger 'human condition.'
I just do not think that the coercive nature of the few, which becomes enshrined within Western institutions, bring about absolutism to human nature.
Are these natures embodied in Western society? Yes.
Are these natures the status quo of the West? Yes.
Are these natures within all of us? Maybe.
Are these natures 'Human Nature?' Certainly no. How can they be when they are entirely inhumane?
There were plenty of civilizations whose nature was very intertwined with nature.
Perhaps more appropriate phrasing is western nature; and it was western nature that killed them all off.