Spirituality is very sweet and pleasant. This article for example is a joy to read. But for that very reason, it's very dangerous. Look at this question: “Why would the old pines trust their reproductive success to these birds and animals?” . In nature, things just are, they don't have human character. They don't "trust" in the same way that a grandma trusts the grandchildren of her neighbors to clean her garden. You can say "birds and animals have been around pines for long enough that pine cones evolved," and that's it.

Then there is this one: "Recognizing that forest ecosystems, like societies, have elements of intelligence would help us leave behind the old notion that they are inert and predictable." Of course they are not inert. But the notion of unpredictability in this context requires, at the very least, some elaboration. Since living organisms like humans are walking ecosystems[1], the treatment of many common and rare ailments depends on our capacity to model and predict ecosystems[2][3][4][5][6]. And just slightly further from home, our capacity to heal and maintain those ecosystems the article's authors love so much also depends on predicting. We can not just walk away saying they are "unpredictable", specially without providing any proof. Wir müssen wissen, wir werden wissen.

[1]: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/9/2/40 [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7350295/ [3]: https://aacijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1322... [4]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK552154/ [5]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41531-021-00156-z [6]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7333005/