Nature has existed at a relative equilibrium for billions of years. It changed, but there was never a single thing that could take over the entire system.

It took humans a few hundred years under the current system to start a mass extinction event and begin dismantling the ecosystem we rely on. And we are ready to go 10x further if it means someone somewhere else makes a few more dollars.

Cancer is the most apt comparison, actually. At a system level we don't care for survival or long-term viability, only immediate replication and exploitation.

That is - a anthropomorphization of nature- assuming what is nice and "stable" to me, is not actually furiously attacking one another. Nature had buildup of warfare materials (the plastic that was trees before fungi digested it).

Nature had campaigns ebb and flow, due to iceages and warmspells, had island holdouts being wiped-out by systems adapted to furious combat on continents (invasive species).

Your picture of nature is very much distorted by a rejection of a rather cthullian reality.

What you mistake for peace is a coldwar equilibrium, where all sites furiously roll the dice of research for new war-tech- and then humans came along. Humans are very much a natural system doing natural things, very successful though.