On a brief glance, I think there are some things you’re missing. You are blindly applying categories of (human) social science to non-human entities without comprehending the conditions under which they are valid. For example, when you speak of price signals, you are implicitly assuming voluntary exchange (catallacty) - but there is no reason to believe that the interactions between non-human entities are voluntary exchanges of any kind.
Voluntary action is a uniquely human category of behavior. So, when applying these ideas outside of the realm in which they have already been developed, it is crucial to observe the conditions under which they apply. This is why praxeology outside of catallacty is less well developed. There are no obvious “rules” (such as marginal utility, price signals, and so on) that can be derived in the broader realm of human action where we do not eliminate the consideration of destructive violence and parasitism.
Given the tenor of your blog post, you may find this thread interesting.
Clayton -