Originally posted by josephw
That's a reasonable idea.
I once read that it is difficult to discern whether the soil exists to support the plant or vice versa.
On Admiralty Island there are about 1600 bears (there are no resident humans.)
The salmon come to spawn, the bears eat them, the bears do what they do in the woods, the rain falls, the soil fills with nutrients, the plants thrive, as do bugs, birds, little critters. The locality is a net contributor of oxygen to the atmosphere, helping humans everywhere. The soil is an active beneficiary and contributor.
Except when a la nina delayed the salmon due to temperature. The bears almost starved, the soil almost starved, the eagles almost starved, etc.
Maybe it's not important to discern whether...etc.
The material world is indifferent as to whether life thrives. Generally in the vast expanse of the universe, life doesn't, and in the long run, it theoretically doesn't anywhere.