3 ms·

Thanks for the long reply. I guess you didn't really get my point, which is kind of implied in the article: Whatever we do to "save the earth or the environmen

Thanks for the long reply. I guess you didn't really get my point, which is kind of implied in the article: Whatever we do to "save the earth or the environment", they are not really "saving" the earth or the environment, because the earth and the environment don't really care about humans. The nature does not differentiates hot vs cold, high CO2 concentration or low CO2 concentration, earth covered by lava or forest. What we call destructions or damages, are just natural processes by a highly intelligent species. All we are doing is making the earth more suitable for humans to live, that's it.

eesmith 8y ago
Then you don't really get my point which is that emphasis on the precise meaning of "natural" or what is "saving" is pedantry that no one cares about. The meaning of "save" in this concept is well understood to mean the connection between human needs/wants and the earth or environment. The whole point of my lengthy reply was to object to the validity making an argument like "just natural processes". Polio is "just [a] natural process". One which killed many children. It was a natural process that humans worked hard to eradicate. So, great - let's say anthropogenic global warming is a natural process ... and work hard to eradicate it too. CFCs in the air are a natural process. We worked hard to eradicate them. Human killing of whales is a natural process. We decided that we should instead "save the whales". "All we are doing is making the earth more suitable for humans to live, that's it." That's too simplistic. We also work to change the human understanding of what "suitable" means.