3 ms·
"It's obvious that killing all the weakest lifeforms on this planet would cause bad things to happen" I made what you were stating clearer. Why would not savin
by baddash 8y ago
"It's obvious that killing all the weakest lifeforms on this planet would cause bad things to happen"
I made what you were stating clearer. Why would not saving endangered species lead to all the weakest lifeforms on the planet going extinct? Is it the fate of all of those lifeforms to go extinct without human intervention?
- KozmoNau7 8y agoThe vast majority of endangered species are endangered because of human activities.
- monocasa 8y agoYep. Specifically, just to hit this point home, the impact of humans is an extinction event comparable to the Cambrian–Ordovician extinction event, or the impact that killed off the dinosaurs. Who(or what)ever exists billions of years from now will be able to view the immensity of our impact assuming they still have the tools we have today.
- bad_user 8y agoTo place things in perspective, all wildlife that isn’t domesticated (livestock) or adapted to live in polluted cities (e.g. rats, dogs, pigeons) are now in danger of extinction due to humans. Even insects. It’s only a matter of time before we kill off what remains and you have to wonder, if we made earth so inhospitable to life, for how long can we survive ourselves?
- coldtea 8y ago"It's obvious that we know jack-shit about what could possibly go wrong and environmental dependencies -- so better not go extinguishing lifeforms since we've evolved our means of extinction beyond what natural nature cycles allow". That's a much better formulation. It doesn't have to be "obvious that killing all the weakest lifeforms on this planet would cause bad things to happen" not to do it. It just has to be possible and uncertain.