I find it interesting that Haraway calls rivers, soil, and even technologies "collaborators" instead of just "resources". This idea could change how we think about environmental politics and responsibility by making the relationship more mutual. But at the same time, if everything becomes a "collaborator," the world might lose its meaning. So i wonder: is this idea really useful for political action, or does it risk becoming too vague..? It may risk stretching the very notion of collaboration beyond recognition.

Is it really the solution/best idea for us to call ourselves "compost"? Is there any risk of diminishing our sense of active responsibility? I mean it is true that all life eventually breaks down and circulates, but it is still unclear how it will lead to immediate political and social action.

We must make kin with all that lives on earth, sym-chthonically and sym-poietically, for we already share a common flesh---lateral, semiotic, genealogical.

While concepts like the Anthropocene or Capitalocene have already secured a place in academic and policy debates, Haraway introduces yet another term, which risk blurring rather than sharpening our understanding.

This is striking how the human refugee crisis and the refugee status of other species are interconnected. I believe that the world often think only of the human crisis, but Haraway makes us see other creatures as refugees as well...and reminds me about climate refugees, endangered animals, and habitat destruction.

This may sound radical at first but it's actually interesting in that it expands the human-centered concept of family and emphasizes relationships with non-human beings. Also, personally, it reminds me of the debate over the birth rate, and Haraway's proposal makes me imagine a new way of living together rather than simply population control.