this reads like compulsive, preemptively obedient penance for pretty petty reasons. first of all the idea of cmns as a www is not falsified and still holds as a hypothesis. the only problem is that it's not proven and confidence of its existence has been blown a little out of proportion. but what's this fuss about romanticizing and anthropomorphizing nature? i mean so what? this article reads almost like people are dying, arguing "consequences can be far-reaching, affecting policy decisions that impact real people". what are those consequences? that we treat forest and trees with a little more care? i'd argue that the idea of www is closer to reality than the simplified notions of modern forest industry of how soil works. just look at the state of commercial forests. most trees and plants do need fungi - that's scientifically proven. and now we argue about the dangers of buying into fungi also connecting plants? this seems a little overblown.