[freeflight]

> there's no intrinsic advantage to being more like nature

It all depends on how you define "advantage":

Being integrated into the ecosystem, instead of acting outside of it like it doesn't exist or matter at all to our survival, and thus being able to survive long-term is a rather big advantage. Otherwise, we might become victims of our own "success" [0].

Now, if you define advantage very narrowly, as in "What's in it for ME?" then you might have a point, tho it's a very shortsighted and egoistical point which leads back to [0].

[0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journa...

[eivarv]

I think they're referring to the "appeal to nature" [0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

[aspaceman]

I was indeed referring to this logical fallacy.

I don't see how treating animals well removes us from the ecosystem. We have already drastically changed the ecosystem of the Earth - might as well do some positive things for it.

[freeflight]

But if you are so skeptical of the "appeal to nature" how would you decide what's positive for Earth/the ecosystem?

Wouldn't you just come back to the conclusion of "What's good for nature must be natural or else it can't be part of nature?"

Imho it's that logic which most "appeals to nature" are built upon.

[michaelmrose]

By figuring out a list of priorities and balancing the benefits of different strategies in terms of those priorities?

[virmundi]

Very hard to do. You've got a form of utilitarian calculus going on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus