Does The 'Wood Wide Web' Have a Life of It's Own?

Sophie Yeo describes the current somewhat vitriolic debate about the 'wood wide web'. Do forests and fungi communicate over vast areas for their mutual benefit? She suggests that the concept has been oversold. Yeo thinks we need 'more hyphae and less hype' i.e. more evidence (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/09/wood-wide-web-theory-charmed-us-bitter-fight-scientists). Yeo suggests the 'wood wide web' has developed 'a life of its own'. It appeals to journalists, because it implies the natural world is neither static nor cruel ('red in tooth and claw'). It rather seems to be a living community, governed by 'moral' principles. That's how many humans like to perceive nature. This is especially true at a time, when the mental health benefits of spending time in the natural world are repeated extolled. There are numerous examples of bacteria; fungi; plants and animals forming associations. In deed, some scientists suggest that both mitochondria (the 'powerhouses of the cell') and chloroplasts (the organelle where photosynthesis occurs) are bacteria chosing to live in multicellular animals and plants. The point is, however, is there has to be mutual benefits. DNA is inherently 'selfish', as it's raison d'etre is to produce copies of itself. There's no room for genuine altruism in any interaction between different species! Close kinship seems the only basis for apparently unselfish behaviour. Yeo maintains there's currently lots of confirmation bias in discussions about the 'wood wide web'.