Set theory: Democracy, the exclusion of Nonhumanity and the problematic shared space
Democracy is the rule of the masses and majorities.
It requires every day anew from you to be thankful for being able to voice your more or less free opinion, towards the astonishing harshness of human brutality against Nature, and complete injustice against Nonhuman Animality.
Interhuman „Master“ and „Servant“ relations are seen as a perhaps even inspirational advantage to some, where both sides profit in some ways, a contractual principle where a hierarchical setting is a prerequisite to bring order into „natural“ human existence. In early antiquity the dependency on the servant nevertheless still was to be recognized as a form of dependency, that some saw critical since it meant a lack of freedom in certain terms also for the „Master’s“ side.
It thus was realized that the solid barriers between the ranks of human beings needed to be reorganized, at least some severe forms of divisions were partially deconstructed.
There could have never been such a constellation between Humans and the Nonhuman realm and (nonhuman) Nature’s realm. Nonhumanity could never been drawn into the accompliceship that humans either had to accept in a codependent world, or adhere to with some form of more optimistic self-interest. And this voluntary or forced bond within humanity would be exerted at horrific costs, to Nonhumans and the Natural world (and humans siding with them).
As a consequence of our inevitable codependence we now see a form of contractualist master/servant setting, practiced by crowds, big enough to make it look so „democracyish“, that the ‚rule of the masses‘ becomes something undermining any other segments within the (human) crowds, and limited only by that what is supposed to suffice as social progress.