This seems rather extreme. To me "accountable" means "accountable for your _reaction_" in this context. I don't think (or at least hope that) anybody advocating this stance is seeking to "eliminate nature" so much as accept it as it is and deal with it on a realistic basis.
As an illustrative example I ride motorcycles on the street. It is a fact of nature that people are going to try and merge into me or cut me off and threaten my life. Blaming them and being angry about it leads to poor outcomes in the form of aggressive and dangerous riding. Instead I focus on mitigating risk by wearing appropriate safety gear and anticipating bad drivers' actions so as to avoid it. I do not seek to control others so much as to maximize the value of my interaction with them by taking ownership of it.
So who's fault is it that you got wet? The weather? Was there nothing that could have been done?
Maybe it's your responsibility to plan for bad weather?
Also GP's point refers to "Extreme Ownership" by Jocko Willink, and from that title it looks fair to effectively imagine the extreme.
GP mentions how focusing on accountability changes the approach to failures, and I'd totally see people taking the wrong lessons from a project where they didn't stop a colleague from doing something that happened to be a bad decision.
You speak for yourself, not for me.
Those different than me often contribute in ways I did not see. Life is better when I embrace improvement.
The basic flaw in this thought exercise of yours is, no one is actually '"accountable" for everything' with the power or desire to enact the consequences you listed. That said, there is nothing wrong with modeling that I am accountable for everything and accepting chaos theory as a unavoidable attribute of the world. This means that me being accountable and things going wrong does not necessitate any of the things you listed "independent behaviors by others must be extinguished" as this is just a sociopathic way of thinking on the path to destruction.