3 ms·

> The destruction of natural habitats can also have a negative effect on human lives Simple question: do you concede that in some cases keeping the natural hab

by oneloop 10y ago

> The destruction of natural habitats can also have a negative effect on human lives Simple question: do you concede that in some cases keeping the natural habitats as they are might be worse than changing them, in terms of loss of life over the long run? If I can't get a yes or no on this, I don't think there's much point in continuing the conversation.

dogma1138 10y ago
It depends, if it's the last liveable place on the planet and our species survival depends on it it's a no brainer. If it's to make some grapes so Canada can make more shitty wine while causing irreversible damage to the local wildlife and causing even worse desertification and other environmental changes in the future then no. There is no black and white, yes and no, good or bad, I don't understand why you are continuing to form these dycohomotic arguments I honestly suspect you are simply trolling at this point.
- oneloop 10y ago
  The question of "are there any circumstances under which ..." is dichotomy. The circumstances either can conceivably exist, or it cannot. And I still haven't gotten an answer from you, so I guess there's no point continuing. No, I'm not trolling.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    It's an utterly pointless question, it's like asking can something happen that you could never predict? this is pretty quasi rhetorical question which has absolutely no value or argument behind it. Yes by not destroying some natural habitat and causing the white tailed ferret to go extinct humans might bring their own extinction because in 3048 they are going to become the natural carriers of the Z virus bringing the oh so anticipated zombie apocalypse. But meantime in the real world from what we know so far from both research and experience negatively affecting the environment causes negative effects on the human civilization.

3 ms·

> The destruction of natural habitats can also have a negative effect on human lives Simple question: do you concede that in some cases keeping the natural hab

by oneloop 10y ago

dogma1138 10y ago
It depends, if it's the last liveable place on the planet and our species survival depends on it it's a no brainer. If it's to make some grapes so Canada can make more shitty wine while causing irreversible damage to the local wildlife and causing even worse desertification and other environmental changes in the future then no. There is no black and white, yes and no, good or bad, I don't understand why you are continuing to form these dycohomotic arguments I honestly suspect you are simply trolling at this point.
- oneloop 10y ago
  The question of "are there any circumstances under which ..." is dichotomy. The circumstances either can conceivably exist, or it cannot. And I still haven't gotten an answer from you, so I guess there's no point continuing. No, I'm not trolling.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    It's an utterly pointless question, it's like asking can something happen that you could never predict? this is pretty quasi rhetorical question which has absolutely no value or argument behind it. Yes by not destroying some natural habitat and causing the white tailed ferret to go extinct humans might bring their own extinction because in 3048 they are going to become the natural carriers of the Z virus bringing the oh so anticipated zombie apocalypse. But meantime in the real world from what we know so far from both research and experience negatively affecting the environment causes negative effects on the human civilization.