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
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"