The amount of different answers to this is probably dizzying, it is a wonderful question!

I prefer to answer it by pointing out that we assume predators are in a hostile relationship with their prey and other predators that access the same types of food. Of course in some ways this is true, in my opinion the definition of an “invasive species” is a species that is invisible to a local ecosystem’s pre-existing network of relationships between species and becomes hostile to the ecosystems continued dynamic equilibrium. However most of the time I don’t think this is necessarily a very productive perspective to take even though our subconscious continually does given the ways in which nature has been narrativized in the modern world.

I propose we consider predator-predator relationships the way plants naturally space pollination and fruiting to fill in gaps other species aren’t filling in terms of providing certain categories of important ecosystem players sustenance to make it to the next season in order to supercharge the productivity of the entire ecosystem and dynamically stabilize it.

Why do we assume two different species of predator that feed on the same prey and live in overlapping areas are truly in conflict? Sure conflict happens, but the point is when you zoom out I don’t personally see good evidence for the “evolutionary battle to the death” that popular nature descriptions (outside of indigenous explanations that feel far more honest) almost suffocatingly rely on to explain things.

I guess my point is, I wonder if an indigenous person who has lived their whole life learning about and interacting with ecosystems would be surprised by this? Probably to some degree, the science is beautiful but I think we don’t realize how culturally we are pressured into simplifying stories around violence and the quality of “uncivilized areas”.

Most human hunters over most of human history have been opportunistic and fairly generalist in nature compared to other types of predators, shouldn’t one of our base intuitions be that our presence as a predator doesn’t mean the other predators are under existential threat because of our presence…?.. and oh! There we have it That is the nut of capitalism that turns us cynical right? Humans HAVE to be in a zero sum existential conflict with Nature.

In order for society to not question the need for our societies to be so cruel to human beings simply so that the rich may remain rich it must be intuitively natural to people to hyper individualize EVERYTHING into a zero sum game of violence… which is why the way nature is narrativized in pop culture is so foundationally political.

What is the metaphor of the Jungle used for? How often does it betray the basic beauty of interactive relationships that jungles are… in favor of indulging in an invocation of the possibility of violence at any moment?

We must demand of ourselves why and how these perspectives became unintuitive to us not in the least part in order to fight the cynicism rightwing extremist ideologies rely upon to subsist. The Jungle is not a place of violence, it contains violence, that is the point. Capitalism does NOT contain violence it spreads it like wildfire.