4 ms·

And - get rid of all humans is then your answer?

• bmitc 3y ago
  Just how exactly did you reach that wild conclusion? I didn't say anything remotely close to that. I don't even know how to respond.
  • tuyiown 3y ago
    > that to respect nature, you need to stay out of it. Even without mentioning the human activity and presence is nature or not, you don't give boundaries to this statement, eg, are agricultural fields should also stay out of nature ? So calling out that you might imply to eradicate humanity is perfectly valid, and some clarification is certainly needed to understand what you actually mean. (I'm curious to know too)
    • bmitc 3y ago
      Staying out of something implies staying in somewhere else, not disappearing entirely. Taking a statement to some hyberbolic extreme is not discussing in good faith. Eradicating humanity is a ridiculous conclusion when I basically meant stay on the trails and reduce our expansion into still wild-ish areas and reconsider our existing presence in some areas and habits. Your mention of agricultural fields is a much more reasonable one to think about and consider. From one side, bats are an important part of our agricultural. So this disease will affect us through losing their beneficial contribution to our agriculture. On the other hand, it is pretty well known that our agricultural practices are quite detrimental to the soil and ecosystems. I don't know what to about that, but one way is that fields often create boundaries between open fields and wooded areas, which are great places for bat houses.