3 ms·

> If you mean humans, we don't destroy our habitat. Right, we only extinguish species after species living on this planet along with us. Mass genocide of hundr

> If you mean humans, we don't destroy our habitat. Right, we only extinguish species after species living on this planet along with us. Mass genocide of hundreds of billions of living beings. And why? Because there are only few humans that are comfortable with the idea that other species may be as important and capable as they are.

Qantourisc 9y ago
As important/capable, I don't agree on that. But I object removing nature/animals/habitat because of a lack of those. Not as important are capable does not mean we should act this way. Slippery slope fallacy: you might as well remove all non-important/capable humans. Stop making more humans, we really don't need more humans on this planet, in my opinion more humans are making things worse, not better. And if you need more humans for your pension (or other financial/workforce/... requirements), your system is flawed, and it will break when the planet can no-longer support your exponential system. And then you have 2 problem: the planet and your pension.
roughcoat 9y ago
You are aware, I hope, that extinction wasn't invented by humanity?
- a2decrow 9y ago
  Yes, but the number of species extinctions skyrocketed due to human behavior. Natural habitats are being chopped down, nature is being forcefully controlled and developed in certain ways and global problems like man-made climate change are threatening a vast amount of species on this planet. Humans aren't the only species destroying other animals' habitats for their own goals, but they're the most destructive one by a great margin. To make matters worse, humans possess the means and should have the common intelligence to find a better way. But instead of working together and saving the planet with all living creatures on it, humans are too busy fighting wars in an attempt at imposing domination on others.

Qantourisc 9y ago

As important/capable, I don't agree on that. But I object removing nature/animals/habitat because of a lack of those. Not as important are capable does not mean we should act this way. Slippery slope fallacy: you might as well remove all non-important/capable humans. Stop making more humans, we really don't need more humans on this planet, in my opinion more humans are making things worse, not better. And if you need more humans for your pension (or other financial/workforce/... requirements), your system is flawed, and it will break when the planet can no-longer support your exponential system. And then you have 2 problem: the planet and your pension.

roughcoat 9y ago

You are aware, I hope, that extinction wasn't invented by humanity?

a2decrow 9y ago
Yes, but the number of species extinctions skyrocketed due to human behavior. Natural habitats are being chopped down, nature is being forcefully controlled and developed in certain ways and global problems like man-made climate change are threatening a vast amount of species on this planet. Humans aren't the only species destroying other animals' habitats for their own goals, but they're the most destructive one by a great margin. To make matters worse, humans possess the means and should have the common intelligence to find a better way. But instead of working together and saving the planet with all living creatures on it, humans are too busy fighting wars in an attempt at imposing domination on others.