[MichaelGG]

Why exactly does Earth itself have any intrinsic value greater than humans? We evolved to expand; we're machines to replicate DNA. I'm not sure how you can state that we now must be custodians and not expand more.

I know you "can't get an ought from an is", and I can come up with several utility functions that have the effect of limiting humankind's impact, but I'm not sure there's any fundamental reason they're valid. You may want to save the environment so you can continue to live, but poaching elephants doesn't harm human survivability.

[DanBC]

We need Earth until we can survive without it. We're a long way from that point.

[technoslut]

>Why exactly does Earth itself have any intrinsic value greater than humans?

If you'd like to be arrogant about it then that's fine. However, we revolve around and are dependent on animals, insects and plants to provide us life.

>We evolved to expand; we're machines to replicate DNA.

You can expand as much as you want. Nature will fight back like it has with adaptive viruses and the Ice Age.

>You may want to save the environment so you can continue to live, but poaching elephants doesn't harm human survivability.

My comment dealt with saving humanity from humans. If you think it's fine to kill elephants while they hold a funeral then you've lost your humanity. Some already have. A bunch of 6 year-olds just got killed and NRA subscriptions went up during that span before any legislation.

[MichaelGG]

>You can expand as much as you want. Nature will fight back like it has with adaptive viruses and the Ice Age.

Ice Age? Can you point me to the theory that shows how Earth or "Nature" is somehow an entity that performs massive climate shifts in response to too-successful lifeforms?

There is no necessary balance in nature. It's a constant struggle and what you see just might be a somewhat stable state. If an actor in that system (like humans) finds a game-theoretic superior strategy, there's no fundamental reason why they won't "win" and destroy the rest of the ecosystem and go extinct. Plenty of other species go extinct all the time. That's nature.

Anyways, I'm not saying it's fine to kill elephants at all. Indeed, I find it disgusting, and it'd be fantastic if societies could figure out ways to ensure that poaching isn't a beneficial action. But I am pointing out there's no mandatory acceptance of any axioms that would generate an obligation to "take care of the Earth", whatever that means. And there's definitely no particular reason why a human killing elephants to feed his family is somehow invalid, whereas if lions do the same thing, it's OK.

[technoslut]

>Ice Age? Can you point me to the theory that shows how Earth or "Nature" is somehow an entity that performs massive climate shifts in response to too-successful lifeforms?

I can point to scientific theses about how it will occur in the future. Are you willing to bet against 95% of the scientific community?

>why a human killing elephants to feed his family is somehow invalid, whereas if lions do the same thing, it's OK.

Are lions wiping out a species?

[notahacker]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that criticisms of attempts to eradicate disease and suggestions that AIDs is a good thing because a tiny fraction of Africans participate in the ivory trade shows a lot more inhumanity than participating in the ivory trade (to feed ones family) itself.

[mathgladiator]

> However, we revolve around and are dependent on animals, insects and plants to provide us life.

That's because we are predators. There's no shame here; it's a simple truth.

> Nature will fight back

The way you put it sounds like nature is a person. Instead, nature is a set of rules that we don't fully understand yet. One day, we may understand those rules and control nature. OR, our bets fail and we are dead.