It looks like you’re suggesting that the polarization in the US is due to naivety and idealism, whereas what’s needed is a realistic appreciation of the cyclical structure of natural systems, which necessitates that the bad comes with the good.

This seems to get at a fundamental difference between our views. You emphasize the natural, whereas I emphasize the difference between the natural and the artificial. Whether the attempt to build artificial, anti-natural or progressive societies is wise or naïve, the fact is that this has been the human enterprise since the Neolithic revolutions some twelve thousand years ago.

So what’s to stop an idealist from saying that the artificial is opposed to the natural, by design, and that personhood doesn’t reduce to animality? That humans are at least attempting to build a better world than what we find in the wilderness? If we fail, won’t it have been a noble, tragic failure? Isn’t it thrilling to attempt to build a linear rather than a cyclical system, a progressive society that grows and grows and gets better and better, by way of the miracles of human ingenuity, tenacity, and technological advances?

What’s the alternative to this reliance on civilized artificiality? A back-to-nature movement or a hunter-gatherer society that requires that we divide up into small tribes and live off the land, following natural norms like submissive Daoists?