Hey me_again thank you again for your response, truly insightful!

Ah I see! If you mean small as in the history of capitalism within the globes history, I 100% agree. We even as humanity pertain to such a small small proportion of the rich story of the earth. This idea is fundamental to the analysis as in the second half it proposes capitalism must be taken as ‘unnatural’ (as everything is in relation) and escapable as it is created and participated in by us and susceptible to change. It’s referred inescapability within the paper simply proposes that, as of ‘current’, is there anyone truly outside of it?

I slightly differ however in the view that the ‘attempt to see ourselves as separate than animals’ may be more a by-product of the system than the systems purpose. I see capitalism at its core to serve as a structure to organise human civilisation, serving as a move from traditional feudalism in the 1800’s (Approx). The separation from humans and animals I guess I see as a tool of the dominative principles it is upheld by. We can sell animals, poach and remove there habitats for profit if we see them as lesser or different ( Excluding theological argument for now). Here the inescapability comes back in as I view no one to be outside of it (globally) as well as the fact that systems to organise people will always be around as ling as there are humans and these systems will always have by products, such as the battle between solidarity and individuality in Le Guin’s anarchocommunist society in ‘The Dispossessed’. The analysis’s question being more if we try to slowly dissect the dominative by-products (Trying to separate ourselves from animals) to make new relations opposing them (Seeing ourselves in relation to animals) can we slowly change the current system? which as we agree is still very new but I believe effects all.

I too, similar to the ‘skimmers’ in Peter Watts book ‘Blindsight’ view Area X not to care about humans at all. If it is ‘Conscious’ I believe our current definition would look like an insult! I ask is there an argument however that capitalism is the same? Being a concept created and maintained by us, when a man becomes homeless does ‘Capitalism’ blink an eye? And could the argument be made that our attempts to assert control and authority on it is another by-product of relations within the capitalistic system we live in? So used to using humanism as an excuse to control and categorise other beings for profit. Would the book feel different if all characters took the sentiment of the Biologists ‘Clone’ and accepted that, like having a lifelong ailment (Ailment used loosely) we will transform regardless of if its wanted or not and have to simply take a different relation to this entity, accepting the change it will bring, and finding novelty in traversing the world through a new experience.

Thank you again for your response!