>>1785902>I feel like their is room for, albeit not modern, human culture in an non-antropocentric worlviewNot the guy you're replying to, but you sort of got at the root of the issue there. Like the other poster pointed out, the hegemonic view of our globe is the infinite growth mindset he illustrated. In order to keep our civilization technically advanced and globalist, there cannot be a smooth transition to a society that values the "deep ecology" view.
If you look at native traditions that those views come from, their entire metaphysical outlook on the world puts humans in a position below nature. We aren't the masters of it that are meant to manipulate it endlessly for optimal gain; we're supposed to only take the resources that we need and be thankful to the earth for everything it provides. The abrahamic tradition of the west, on the other hand - who's influence has gone far beyond a religious understanding of the world - states that we're made in God's image and are above all nature. Our current civilization is sustained and propelled by the idea that we can and should rule over our world.
Tangents aside, this is why you would need billions of people to die and a complete paradigm shift to live in a sustainable civilzation. You need to build your world on sustainable principles, not swap out our current mindset for one that don't shit all over everything that isn't human. If you want deep ecology, you're probably going to need human activity to halt. Good luck convincing the powers that be to give up their thrones
