[mihaic]

I'm really curious why you care about the ecosystem if humans went extinct. It feel extremely unnatural to me, to put another species over their own.

[danparsonson]

It's possible to extend empathy to all living creatures, not just those similar to oneself. Or to put it another way, to take the view that all living things have equal value on a grand scale.

[refurb]

But if one takes a completely objective viewpoint, what makes humans special? We’re no different than beavers who make damns and flood a river. Sure we do it on a larger scale but are we any less “natural” than any other species? Keep in mind the fact we “care” is irrelevant and no more important than a beavers urge to build a damn. It’s all driven by genetics.

I mean oxygen producing single called organisms drastically altered the environment. They were not conscious to actually notice, but we are. But tons of species went extinct and the earth was irrevocably changed due to their presence.

Thinking humans are special on the cosmic timescale is just arrogance.

[danparsonson]

> Thinking humans are special on the cosmic timescale is just arrogance.

Agreed - I don't find anything to disagree with in what you're saying.

[bantunes]

To quote ambassador Spock: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

[TeMPOraL]

Unless there are aliens around, there won't be any "many" left after humanity goes extinct - at least not until another sapient species evolves.

[ncmncm]

Only sapients have needs?

[TeMPOraL]

To a first approximation, for a definition of "needs" that doesn't count bacteria as having them, yes.

[atlantic]

If it's just a question of numbers, we should prioritize the survival of ants over our own. Not a good argument.

[OneTimePetes]

The needs of the many legs outweigh the needs of the few

[ncmncm]

If you're counting species, beetles.

[thujlife]

the needs of the haves outweigh the needs of the have nots"