>I don't see how you can build a political philosophy without taking facts like that into account. We already have political philosophy which takes that into a

>I don't see how you can build a political philosophy without taking facts like that into account. We already have political philosophy which takes that into account; it concerns material conditions and relations of production, and the reproduction of labour-power. Economists on all sides of the political spectrum from Austrians to classical Marxists talk about population, growth, sustainability, and the need for necessities and shelter. Where people disagree is the subsumption of natural disaster and the basic human fact of life into a naturalistic conception of production relations. Production relations are built on top of natural requirements, but they are not the same thing, as evidenced by the wide variety of production relations which serve those natural requirements through history (whether slave societies, feudal societies, 'communal' societies, or capitalist societies). When talking in political philosophy, you abstract from raw physical facts of caloric intake to how those calories are organized and distributed in society, and to what degrees. "Domination by nature" is an irrelevant question to political philosophy, which strictly concerns matters known (natural disaster, food, shelter, sex) or hypothesized to be (transhumanism, gender relations, distribution and production of medicines, urban or rural life, the work day) in the hands of humans.