68
Fren? looks it up Not frenš”
(hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
68 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13539 readers
707 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
These animals are just existing.
Claiming we have a right to murder them for being in the wrong place is cruel - they have only spread there as a result of humanity.
Do we have a right to eradicate humanity in turn?
Humans can change their behavior and protect nature. Other invasive species cannot.
So we have a right to murder innocent animals because we, the most destructive species in history, have deemed them āinvasiveā?
Invasive species will lead to ecosystems being further destroyed. do you have any fuckin clue what you're talking about?
Itās a moral consideration this isnāt a fucking logic problem.
I donāt value ecosystems, but I do value animal lives. Unsure how I could be wrong about that on a moral level.
If a pack of dogs was loose in a forest; I would not kill the dogs, for example.
Don't be silly. All moral considerations are logic problems. Theory without praxis is immaterial at best and concern trolling at worst.
And ecosystems are made up of a sum of lives, animal and otherwise. Their collapse inherently kills animals. There is no moral superiority in allowing deaths by inaction.
If the pack of wild dogs was eating every single deer and you wouldn't kill the dogs, you do not value animal lives.
Do we have the right to stop a forest fire simply because we deem it dangerous?
Having the same moral value for a fire and living creature is wrong.
You can do a million things other than kill them to fix the problemā¦ but killing them is cheapest, so thatās whatās done.
I mean I'm not gonna kill myself because a few billionaires fucked the environment.
I feel like blaming the whole human species for ecosystem collapse and climate change isn't fair since we've existed for millennia, and the world was fine then.
"The industrial revolution and its consequences", not "the human species and its consequences"
It is crueler to let them destroy ecosystems they did not evolve in.
And no one (who is a leftist) would argue to kill humans outside of Africa, because we can choose not to be invasive butts. We are because of capitalism. These things are because of instinct. There is no way these can reasonably fit into the system they are introduced to, without massive damage to the local system.
I see no reason to value the current ecosystem. Itās completely arbitrary.
If we had tech capable of it, would we be obligated to restore past ecosystems? What if doing so destroyed the current ecosystem? At some point every species alive today displaced another.
What makes the ecosystem as it exists right now especially valuable?
In my view? Unlike ecosystems, animals are actually alive and can suffer. I choose to value their lives over an arbitrary relation of animals at a point in time called an ecosystem.
invasive humans also need to die sometimes, your āgotchaā doesnāt work
the ājust existingā native habitat lanternfly isnāt being killed, only ones where the lanterflys are committing genocidal extinction of other species
Humans are indigenous idk what to tell you