>>832906How do you mean? I think most Christians reject the idea that nature is evil, they call that gnosticism. God made the world and it was good. Or they say it used to be even better but man corrupted it with sin (but where did the sin come from if not God). Other traditional beliefs usually go with cycles of good/bad, or society as a living being (starts young and energetic, grows into middle age stability, then decays into senility and death), or linear degeneration like the Greek ages of men starting with gold to silver to heroic etc. and each age has less virtue. Maybe the Buddhists believe something like that, not sure (life is suffering).
If you mean something about competition (nature is war, all else is error) maybe, but I'm not sure, nature is certainly mostly rape, starvation, and suffering, and the left acts like barbarism is closer to nature, except when it comes to tribal people oddly enough. On the other hand, evolution has a whiggish logic, the left isn't opposed to war or competition, Marx and Engels loved evolution, Kropotkin wrote much about cooperation in nature (which is true enough but also a bit of cope, like two tribes cooperating to genocide the 3rd). It's usually the right that rejects evolution because it says man is just another animal although there are atheist right-wingers who embrace it as an excuse to cull the weak. Religious right-wingers act like evolution is true (there's no atheist quiver-full movement). Both left and right are fine with killing millions to establish their "superior" society.
Cyclical history is often called conservative as opposed to the left's whiggish linear progression but the old Marxists thought society would both advance and bring back elements of older societies (the whole spiraling dialectic thing) like how hunter-gatherers were supposedly primitive communists or Lenin on how prole democracy would resemble democracy from antiquity. I guess it's like evolution where traits can be dormant or vestiges and then later reused or repurposed when conditions are right.
>>832989Just give a crumb of criticism. I guess technically you're supposed to say nature is AMORAL but whatever. Dawkins calls nature "pitilessly indifferent" then poetically described widespread suffering beyond human comprehension, if you inflicted a sliver of this on anyone you'd be called a psychopath. I guess you'd say morality is only applicable to creatures of some minimal intelligence and thus doesn't apply to abstract nature/ecology/evolution. People also say states and corpos are amoral despite being made of people. Will the real moral agents please stand up?
>>832905Communists say they want to move beyond the realm of necessity and be lords of nature (Engels).
This discussion reminded me of a funny split in feminism. There's the hippie feminists who cast feminity as divine, the cosmic womb, men are jealous of women's power to create life. Then there's the (niche online) radfems/black pilled fems who say that's insane, watch any nature documentary, to be a female animal is to be raped, to suffer horrible pain, to be weaker than the males (at least for mammals, with rare exceptions), nature gave us patriarchy, why worship what oppresses you, FUCK NATURE, cut down the Amazon, nuke the whales, and so on. Or maybe they say we should emulate elephant society instead. Also the cyber feminists who's motto is if nature is unjust, change nature. But I guess everyone being a sexless cyborg is still nature right.