The passage is making too many assumptions, and does not really open much of a dialogue with the reader. The De-Shi character is just kind of thrown at us without really explaining who they are, and why we should care about what they are saying.
There is also very little supporting evidence of forests that are planted by squirrels. Sure, a handful of acorns may germinate, and some trees may grow as a result, here and there, but there is no evidence presented which would make us think that entire forests are being planted. Trees reproduce in many different ways. This is simply one way that it can happen.
It is true that things in nature are interconnected. Seeds are spread by many different kinds of animals. Flowers are pollinated by bees, and other insects, as well as by humming birds, and the wind. The flowers themselves have bright colors, and sweet smells which attract insects. 445
The flowers also produce an excess amount of pollen, which is enough for the bees to convert that to honey and feed their hive, which in turn feeds other animals, including people.
It is also true that many living organisms have flaws. The argument that we have flaws for a reason is very weak. Sure, there is a positive side effect for some of the flaws in nature such as with squirrels, but not all flaws are positive. What is the purpose of a human being getting cancer, or some kind of other disease?
The point I am trying to make is that a writer doesn't need to get into lofty discussions about how the world works to have an impact. Especially if the writer does not have a complete understanding of the subject. The reader will not necessarily have a passionate response to something just because the writer intends it to be about a passionate subject. You can't guilt someone to be passionate, you must engage them in the conversation, and give them enough information for them to arrive at the place where you are. Sure, this is something you believe in, but you need to tell the reader how you arrived there, so they can follow along. 487