37 ms·

By any definition humans are an invasive species. Unfortunately killing our fellow humans has been a competitive sport from time immemorial.

enchiridion 4y ago
Misanthropy disguised as concern for the environment does not contribute to the discussion. Edit: Given your username, I’d expect more faith in humanity, not less.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  I don't think we need to read this as misanthropy, necessarily. > By any definition humans are an invasive species. Unfortunately killing our fellow humans has been a competitive sport from time immemorial. Perhaps the point that we, to, are an invasive species is intended to inspire a bit of compassion within us for the hogs, toads, rabbits and whatever else. I'm not sure how much I agree -- the invasive hogs really are damaging to the ecosystem. Though, manually going out to shoot them seems like a questionable means of controlling the population. And they should be killed as mercifully as other species -- they didn't ask to be invasive, after all.
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >Misanthropy disguised as concern for the environment does not contribute to the discussion. The importance of language and the dispassionate and accurate employment of accurate definitions is neither misanthropy or related to environmental concerns. >Edit: Given your username, I’d expect more faith in humanity, not less. Personally, that the largest and most productive societies on earth dedicate a large portion of their resources to building weapons of mass destruction isn't something that inspires much faith in humanity. Props to Petrov for acting with more sense then most of the rest of humanity.
refurb 4y ago
Humans are as natural as any animal on this planet. Beavers build dams, flooding vast areas and it’s natural. When humans do it, it’s not. Makes zero sense.
- henriquemaia 4y ago
  Though I understand, and in a way agree with your point—that human changes to the environment are as natural as that of beavers—, I think one important difference is the scale of those changes. Ours are not as natural in the sense that we no longer rely on our inborn capacities to produce those changes. Yes, in a way we are like beavers in our engineering. But we are insanely overpowered beavers. The scope of our changes puts us in a class of our own. So if we call changing the environment by one's own means only 'natural', and massively changing it by compounded means 'artificial', we are not natural, not as beavers. Ours is artificial. So contrary to what you said, that distinction makes at least some sense.
  - yourapostasy 4y ago
    > But we are insanely overpowered beavers. Modern human civilization is the apex predator that still often feels and acts like it is prey on the African veldt. So you get insanely overpowered beavering while some of us still compare us on the same level as beavers.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Seems like a whataboutism. Is there any other animal outside of humans we see as a serious threat to our habitat, to the extent we are?
  - refurb 4y ago
    Isn’t that all a matter of subjective opinion? If a beaver floods a field and leads to the extinction of some small species, is that “unnatural”? What if humans flood the same field? An even bigger question - if humans didn’t exist, does the earth have any intrinsic value at all?
- midoridensha 4y ago
  Beavers don't build ships and move to other continents and then build dams there, wrecking the local ecology.

enchiridion 4y ago

Misanthropy disguised as concern for the environment does not contribute to the discussion. Edit: Given your username, I’d expect more faith in humanity, not less.

bee_rider 4y ago
I don't think we need to read this as misanthropy, necessarily. > By any definition humans are an invasive species. Unfortunately killing our fellow humans has been a competitive sport from time immemorial. Perhaps the point that we, to, are an invasive species is intended to inspire a bit of compassion within us for the hogs, toads, rabbits and whatever else. I'm not sure how much I agree -- the invasive hogs really are damaging to the ecosystem. Though, manually going out to shoot them seems like a questionable means of controlling the population. And they should be killed as mercifully as other species -- they didn't ask to be invasive, after all.
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>Misanthropy disguised as concern for the environment does not contribute to the discussion. The importance of language and the dispassionate and accurate employment of accurate definitions is neither misanthropy or related to environmental concerns. >Edit: Given your username, I’d expect more faith in humanity, not less. Personally, that the largest and most productive societies on earth dedicate a large portion of their resources to building weapons of mass destruction isn't something that inspires much faith in humanity. Props to Petrov for acting with more sense then most of the rest of humanity.

refurb 4y ago

Humans are as natural as any animal on this planet. Beavers build dams, flooding vast areas and it’s natural. When humans do it, it’s not. Makes zero sense.

henriquemaia 4y ago
Though I understand, and in a way agree with your point—that human changes to the environment are as natural as that of beavers—, I think one important difference is the scale of those changes. Ours are not as natural in the sense that we no longer rely on our inborn capacities to produce those changes. Yes, in a way we are like beavers in our engineering. But we are insanely overpowered beavers. The scope of our changes puts us in a class of our own. So if we call changing the environment by one's own means only 'natural', and massively changing it by compounded means 'artificial', we are not natural, not as beavers. Ours is artificial. So contrary to what you said, that distinction makes at least some sense.
- yourapostasy 4y ago
  > But we are insanely overpowered beavers. Modern human civilization is the apex predator that still often feels and acts like it is prey on the African veldt. So you get insanely overpowered beavering while some of us still compare us on the same level as beavers.
quickthrower2 4y ago
Seems like a whataboutism. Is there any other animal outside of humans we see as a serious threat to our habitat, to the extent we are?
- refurb 4y ago
  Isn’t that all a matter of subjective opinion? If a beaver floods a field and leads to the extinction of some small species, is that “unnatural”? What if humans flood the same field? An even bigger question - if humans didn’t exist, does the earth have any intrinsic value at all?
midoridensha 4y ago
Beavers don't build ships and move to other continents and then build dams there, wrecking the local ecology.