When people in a communist society look back at bourgeois society, they will be baffled and confused by the fear the atomised liberal subjects had of their inevitable death at the hand of some disease or other, and the amount of resources the rich spent extending their lifespan at the cost of their quality of life

Also the "all dolphins are torture obsessedremoveds" thing is about as true as "all humans are torture obsessedremoveds". This may shock you, but individuals of species are capable of wide varieties of behaviours. Theres also accounts of dolphins saving people, working closely with indigenous peoples to get food, and many other behaviours. Unfortunately they dont get as many clicks or views

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

I agree that nature is not hell. I also agree that there are plenty of problems when we orient our societies around capital accumulation. Heck, I see that there were benefits to the Paleolithic that we lost when we transitioned to the Neolithic.

If we are to conscientiously evaluate nature, I think it’s important neither to romanticize it nor demonize it.

I accept that my original comment seemed one-sided, reductive, and fear-laden. However, my goal was to serve as a counterweight to OP. Maybe I should’ve been more comprehensive in my original comment.

At the same time, I hope we can both agree that nature is a natural system that isn’t inherently good or bad. We humans are also not inherently good or bad. Therefore, any reductive narrative that claims that “nature is evil”, “nature is perfect”, “humans are the virus”, or “humans are perfect” is not accurate.

We are complex creatures in complex systems. Therefore our functions aren’t fixed. We can exploit exaptation. And so can what we call nature.