Plus, in our highly individualized and hierarchical society, people don't have a lot of practice making decisions democratically, or coming to a consensus with people they disagree with. "Group projects" in grade school is pretty much the only time this happens during our socialization, which is incredibly sparse and inadequate. Anthropologically speaking, we should be doing this nearly every day.

Other animals such as orcas also have been shown to have societies, language, culture, and history that is passed onto children. You could perhaps say that is also second nature.

Call it what you want, but clearly modern human society is distinct in that it stands above (quite literally in the form of cities) and uniquely has the ability to threaten the rest of life on the planet. While at the same time being part of nature.

Humans are part of the surrounding ecology whether we recognize it or not, as others have noted in this thread. The difference is many indigenous societies have tended to recognize it and integrate it into socio-cultural practices as a necessary part of survival in their local ecology, while our modern human society mostly does not.

Consider the Kucadikadi people of now-Mono Lake , whose autonym literally means "eaters of the brine fly pupae". That is how closely their society, culture, and language is related to their local ecology, which "evolved" (in the 2nd nature sense) out of thousands of years of human society development and survival in that place. Notably their society has not developed to threaten or extinquish the brine flies on which they depend.

I don't think you understand what the noble savage trope is. I'm commenting on the development of indigenous human societies in the Americas. The vast majority of them were ecologically compatible. This is not a commentary on the morality of individuals. To take the Mexica empire as an example, they were not a moral civilization by our standards (neither were the Spanish colonizers), and they had an over-reliance on corn and obsidian, but other than that they survived in a way that did not stress or extinguish or destabilize the surrounding ecology.

Do you rely on the surrounding plants and animals in your area for sustenance, creating tools, daily life, etc? You do not, that's what I mean by living above/apart. Living in this way does not lead to an ecological society or a shared knowledge base of the surrounding ecology. Do your spiritual and cultural practices involve or integrate that reliance in some way? That's what I'm getting at.

The copy - "it's not left, it's not right," short punchy sentences.

The spacing in the header - font sizes

The copy in the header - Too much text for a title

"Who We Are" section - has 4 symmetrical boxes, filling out the space with unnecessary detail.

The "cards" in the middle content section - Tons of detail . AI loves to generate these as the meat of a website.

The sections after, it begins to devolve into tangents/rambling , but still with excruciating detail. More small cards each with too much detail.

Lots of meaningless numbers highlighted. "20!" "13!"

"Timeline of documented abuse" - this section has text that is too small and a bullet list way too long. AI loves to use this very small text size. Spacing is weird and not made for/by a human.

It keeps going...

I'm sorry but you all need to level up your game wrt detecting AI.

Stability? A BDFL can make decisions at a whim that radically destabilize and change the project. Lording over and causing immense harm to the community without any sort of accountability is a recipe for disaster.

Good for everyone? A BDFL can unilaterally make decisions that prioritize their own desires over everyone else. It becomes about their personality rather than the project.

Functional? A BDFL is less functional, seeing how there is no requirement that the BDFL do anything that the community of people actually wants.

If you're saying you're opposed to democracy because you don't like the decision that codeberg reached democratically, the BDFL can do the exact same thing. Except the process is far worse, because there is literally no input from anyone else on making the decision.