[Capricorn2481]

You're doing crazy gymnastics right now. Eliminating biomes drives animals to extinction. In what world could you argue that doesn't deserve even a little moral consideration?

I'm not going to argue with someone who works this hard to be a contrarian.

[greygoo222]

It's not gymnastics, you just have no background on this topic.

Species are not moral subjects. Individuals are.

Killing an individual animal that could live a worthwhile life for longer is an individually bad act. Insofar as this happens in the process of species going extinct, that's bad. But it's also the default state of nature. Does replacing a forest with a city cause net harm to non-human animals? That's not clear. It might even be net good.

Does that mean we should destroy wilderness on purpose to prevent wild animal suffering? Not yet, we don't have the technology to mitigate knock-on effects, and it should be done a way that does not harm individuals. But I can't get behind viewing biome destruction as some kind of atrocity against the animals within them, at least not as a whole. (Some species have better lives than others).

[itsanaccount]

I think this is a monstrous thought that will never be explained to you.

[greygoo222]

What is monstrous is the confusion of the natural with the just.

[Capricorn2481]

> It's not gymnastics, you just have no background on this topic

> But I can't get behind viewing biome destruction as some kind of atrocity against the animals within them, at least not as a whole.

Well good luck with the doctorate I guess.