I agree

Hell is other people

Yeah, only 10% of all mammalian biomass being human would still be too much. But we are 500% (and our livestock 1000%).

About the too much: all animals of similiar mass per individual range in the low 100'000s globally (the larger the less). That's the sustainable amount.

desire for infinite growth in a finite system - results are obvious. the finite system will crash and burn. we are fucked, nature will recover when we make it not suitable for humans

Strictly speaking, its unknown if we live in a finite system or an infinite one - but it's certain that the local topology isn't infinitely dense.
(We speculate one can technically go infinitely far in any direction of space or indefinitely backward and forward through time; but there's not any infinite amounts of stuff here which is the problem.)
- Well yeah, the earth is a fixed size. I think that is their point. Of course the universe could be infinite, but the amount of livable resources we have access to is currently finite.

“Many were increasingly of the opinion that they’d all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.”

Nah. This is some eco-fascist/primitivist type shit. Fuck that.

What?
- This invokes the overpopulation myth, the reductive belief that the planet would somehow be “better off” without humans (importantly: how would you make that happen?), and perhaps, projecting the environmental sins of one’s own culture onto all of humanity.
  I don’t know if these count as actual eco-fascism when the target is the entire human population, but it’s certainly adjacent.

Smells like ecofash.

Edit:

That's the current state though, where wildlive evaded into the woods and is generally in decline.

Some cultures managed to last for tens of thousands of years without destroying the planet. Not all cultures and social structures are the same or have the same impact on their environments.

in a shocking twist, cultures who believe themselves to be a part of nature tend to be much better at preserving it then cultures who see themselves as the owners of nature

Agree

I used to think so as well, but as other posters have pointed out, we actually did manage to live in harmony with nature for tens of thousands of years. Humans aren't the problem per sé, but our systems definitely are.

It's not the systems alone. It's the multiplication of systems per number of humans.
Too many humans even with paleolithic lifestyle will fuck up the environment anyway.
We need to find a balance, what systems we do we want to live in and how many humans can that system accommodate.

working on it, just give it some time.

I’m not saying humans aren’t responsible for the Anthropocene. I’m not saying we don’t have to save out planet. But we shouldn’t idealize nature.

Check out that thread. It’s filled with gems:

https://lemmy.ml/post/31109024

The first comment alone misrepresents beavers and elephants as poorly as that one dumbass sunfish comment from the old site that everyone reposted all the time. The widespread eradication of massive beaver populations across North America has caused untold ecological damage that we’ll never fully understand.

        Right on point 👍