by 
Capitalism’s view of nature is that it is something to be conquered and exploited. The more science and technology has advanced, the greater our sense of dominance over nature has grown … to the point where we see ourselves above it. It’s become something we need to be protected from it. Nature is something to be used for the benefit of human progress and has no intrinsic value in and of itself. . The needs of other species only matter in relation to us. Even our early relationship with robots is one of servitude.
The irony is that this exploitation of nature is directly responsible for the climate change and resource overshoot issues now threatening the very survival of humanity — although there are admittedly many who do not see that yet. The “dominion over nature” view aligns with modern values — winning, achieving, conquering … no matter the cost.
The After Capitalism view, supported by integral and postmodern view of nature is one of partnership and stewardship. How can we use nature’s bounty in a resilient and regenerative way? It is easy to simply assume the bounty will be there. In many parts of the world, certainly in the US, we spend so much of our time indoors that we are losing touch with the importance and fragility of nature. This shift suggests a key to a successful transformation to After Capitalism is to get ourselves reintroduced and reintegrated with nature so that we can act in a way that preserves it for us and future generations. – Andy Hines
what i hear, see, and read is that new biotech will allow humans to advance while doing less harm to the environment; however, it will come from DOMINATING the environment.
we will make organisms more resilient by modifying (DOMINATION) their DNA… we will make crops less pervasive by modifying (DOMINATION) them… we will restore extinct species (DOMINATION)… we will create clean energy with cold-fusion by DOMINATING atomic reaction…
here are some tough questions:
1. can we predict what the environment would look like without us?
2. once we think we know what the environment would look like without us, should we perpetuate that?
3. or should we account for our part of the environment and how do we do that? tricky indeed…
4. what would it mean to “make the environment better”? whose opinion is correct?
5. do we just go along with the earth’s “natural, continuous evolution” even if that means elephant extinction and destruction of coral reefs?
6. what if restoring “rain forests” prevents the emergence of new species of flora and fauna? should we do that…
our “DOMINATION” may change direction, but it is not going away
we are way in over our heads here. even if the politics could be resolved which they can’t. especially when you have some people that would eliminate humans to “save” the environment, or eliminate creature comforts like heating/AC, or eliminate everything but foot-based and wind-based transportation (ala Greta), etc.
just watched “Serengeti Rules”. it is about re-establishing an environment of “fear”…
reintroducing lions and wild dogs to feed on grazers makes the grazers alert and makes them move which restores the area’s “natural” condition… yeah… come back in 10 years…