Well, we agree on a few things. But there are also some very deep disagreements, which is only natural. The point of discussion is not consensus anyway, but truth. And I appreciate your comments.

One deep disagreement is about the idea that "nature owns itself". I do not find this even remotely plausible. I ascribe rights of ownership exclusively to adult human beings. (Not in virtue of belonging to our particular species, but in virtue of being rational beings). Ownership is all about deciding over that which is owned, and "nature" cannot make any decisions.

Capitalism in its purest form is the idea of private ownership over nature, and the ability to exploit this ownership for personal gain.

If this is what capitalism is, then I support it! Exploiting nature for personal gain is what we do when we cultivate land and grow crops and vegetables or graze our cattle and many other things. With ownership we are able to enjoy the fruits of today's labour tomorrow, without someone else coming along and taking away from us what we have produced. The vegetables that you have grown now belong to you and it is you who gets to decide what to do with them.

We could not have trade without ownership. If the vegetables that you grew did not belong to you, you could not sell them to me, because the concept of "trade" involves the transfer of ownership from one to another.

It is of course true that in growing vegetables we "exploit" the sunlight and nutrients in the soil and much else besides, but this doesn't make the products any less ours. The sunlight is just there (luckily!) for us to use, and is not stolen from anyone.

Life is ALWAYS using these life-giving systems to live. Therefore, the simple notion of owning them will ALWAYS impede on their life.

I'm not sure what this means, but in using natural resources we humans surely "impede" life in some ways and promote it in others. This is inevitable and I don't see it as problematic.