4 ms·

I'm personally pretty satisfied with not having my flesh eaten by screw flies. They were wiped out in North America and I'm very grateful. https://en.wikipedia

I'm personally pretty satisfied with not having my flesh eaten by screw flies. They were wiped out in North America and I'm very grateful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochliomyia_hominivorax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochliomyia_hominivorax

Semirhage 8y ago
Unless you’re livestock, or indigent that was never going to be a problem for you.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Yeah screw those indigents...
  - Semirhage 8y ago
    Let’s not, instead let’s help them with the many more pressing concerns such as homelessness, alcoholism, and mental health issues. No need to eradicate a species to improve their lives. For the record, screwflies were eliminated to save the livestock industry billions, not to help homeless people.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      It isn't a "mental health issue" on my part, that I don't want maggots living in and eating my flesh...
      - Semirhage 8y ago
        This is not in line with the principle of responding to the strongest possible interpretation of a post, it’s the oppposite.
JackCh 8y ago
The fact that you cite past animal exterminations to justify additional animal exterminations proves my point. The more species are eradicated the more normal it becomes and the more people will be willing to do it again. The normalization of extermination should be avoided, even if it comes at the costs of hundreds of millions of human lives per year. (There is no people shortage, but damage to the environment is often permanent. And not to put too fine a point on it, but human populations are growing too fast as it is which is a leading cause of environmental destruction. We should not be attacking the environment to encourage massive increases in human population growth; not unless we have very concrete and immediate plans on how to artificially retard the growth of human populations. Waiting for economic factors to suppress birth rates isn't good enough; that sort of milquetoast approach leads to extraordinary destruction of the environment. It's little more than an excuse to ignore the problem and do nothing.)

Semirhage 8y ago

Unless you’re livestock, or indigent that was never going to be a problem for you.

jessaustin 8y ago
Yeah screw those indigents...
- Semirhage 8y ago
  Let’s not, instead let’s help them with the many more pressing concerns such as homelessness, alcoholism, and mental health issues. No need to eradicate a species to improve their lives. For the record, screwflies were eliminated to save the livestock industry billions, not to help homeless people.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    It isn't a "mental health issue" on my part, that I don't want maggots living in and eating my flesh...
    - Semirhage 8y ago
      This is not in line with the principle of responding to the strongest possible interpretation of a post, it’s the oppposite.

JackCh 8y ago

The fact that you cite past animal exterminations to justify additional animal exterminations proves my point. The more species are eradicated the more normal it becomes and the more people will be willing to do it again. The normalization of extermination should be avoided, even if it comes at the costs of hundreds of millions of human lives per year. (There is no people shortage, but damage to the environment is often permanent. And not to put too fine a point on it, but human populations are growing too fast as it is which is a leading cause of environmental destruction. We should not be attacking the environment to encourage massive increases in human population growth; not unless we have very concrete and immediate plans on how to artificially retard the growth of human populations. Waiting for economic factors to suppress birth rates isn't good enough; that sort of milquetoast approach leads to extraordinary destruction of the environment. It's little more than an excuse to ignore the problem and do nothing.)