3 ms·

But much like you say "humans have an impact on what's around them, causing it to change, and eventually that could cause loss of lives", you can also say that

• dogma1138 10y ago
  Humans are not really subjected to natural selection anymore, we need to really screw up the planet for that to happen and by that time it would be too late. Nature tends to balance itself out, this is slightly harder to do with humans which have the technology to geoengineer their habitats. But even if it was so it doesn't matter, no person in their right mind would think it's ok for me to die, and for millions or billions of other people to die just because it's the natural order of things. And for the most part you can't even hide behind it's a "natural process" because humans are geoengineers we build huge concrete cities, we build dams, we divert rivers, we strip whole mountains and dig the decomposing biomass of our "ancestors" and burn it as fuel. Bears and trees don't do that.
  • oneloop 10y ago
    Ok, so your argument is to object to my claim that things other than humans can have an impact that leads to loss of lives? I ask this because of your final comment that "bears and trees don't do that".
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]