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.

[–] Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 2 points 1 hour ago

You're getting this pushback for a couple reasons.

First, I think you're missing part of the home in the OP. The heron has a flawed notion about alteration, and as they celebrate the beavers are hard at work altering the landscape literally behind its back. (Beaver-altered landscapes are beneficial to the niche of a green heron but that's beside the point.)

Second, responding to someone expressing a love of nature with a statement about how terrible and indifferent it is / can be is just kind of tired. We know! Modern human society means I'm insulated from those dangers, just a little knowledge and cooperation goes a long way! The death driven by humanity is the far larger horror in my opinion.

It doesn't come off as clever it just comes off as basic and needlessly contrarian.

This is not meant to be insulting but I feel your viewpoint fits well in the middle of this bell curve meme.