[tedks]

>The other parts of this earth play an essential role in maintaining ecological balance on this planet, and a world with just farms and cities and the animals that can survive within is not going to bode well for us or any other species. Hopefully that's a good enough argument if you still don't think that mass extinction and habitat lose isn't a negative outcome in and of itself.

Why?

Humans don't even need animals. It's brutally cruel to enslave, torture, kill and eat animals the way we do. Humanity can be fine on its own.

Regardless of whether or not you like things like, say, hippos, or mosquitoes, or prairie voles, humanity does not need them.

Should we set half the earth aside for wildlife? I think it'd be better used by humans.

[gaplus]

You can't be serious. First of all, wildlife and the rich biodiversity of nature has its own intrinsic value without needing to be "useful" to humans. Second, we're constantly learning from other species and I doubt we're even close to knowing everything there is to know about them. Some of our best tech was inspired by wildlife (sonar, swarm robotics, aviation, the list goes on).

[pyre]

Let's be frank. I don't need you. So if I see you being mugged/raped/beaten, should I just go on my merry way or should I help you?

Saying "I don't need animals so fuck them" is not a great attitude to have.

Not to mention that we do need plants/trees, and we'd find it difficult to keep them going without the biospheres that they survive in.

[lewaldman]

> Let's be frank. I don't need you. So if I see you being mugged/raped/beaten, should I just go on my merry way or should I help you?

Yes... you should unless is someone that you care enough to risk abandon every loved one that you have by dying for a stranger.

I'm an extremelly pragmatic a-hole when we are speaking about eco-nonsense.

We will not change on time. We will destroy the planet. This is fine as we are, acording to Darwin, the current fittest animal in the planet.

So... what's the worst that can happen? We will be extincted by ourselves (carring several "not-good-enough-for-evolution" species with us... but, they weren't good enough so, who cares?)... and this my friend, is also fine.

And to close... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL8HP1WzbDk

"The Planet is fine... we are fd" :)

[pyre]

"The Planet" is just a big ball of rock. People are usually talking about the ecosystems that exist on the surface of the planet when they talk about "destroying the planet." The play on words to say "don't worry, this big ball of rock will keep spinning" is tired and played out.

[vlasev]

I think the person is confusing needing animals for food versus needing animals in general. We certainly don't enslave and eat ALL animals.

[tedks]

I think you're misrepresenting my argument, which isn't "actively perpetuate harm on non-humans", but rather "let's build a world with mostly humans via the most humane way possible."

>if I see you being mugged/raped/beaten, should I just go on my merry way or should I help you?

Please avoid casually triggering rape survivors; 1/4 women has suffered sexual assault and using thought experiments that are triggering without any reason to (mugged/murdered would have sufficed) is a way to exclude women from spaces.

But as to your question, that depends. Do you think anything sentient has some sort of right not to suffer, or do you generally prefer a world without sentient suffering? If so, it'd be morally consistent to help me, and it'd also be morally inconsistent to eat meat or consume animal products in general.

As a vegan myself, I'm generally opposed to actions that perpetuate the suffering of sentient life. However, this only applies, critically, to life which exists. I have no moral obligation to perpetuate a species, because a species is a concept, not an actual thing, and it does not have the ability to suffer.

So, I'd be totally supportive of diffusing birth control for non-human species and just letting them go extinct. I'd honestly rather use that space and resources for humans than animals. I care about humans more and I generally think a world with more humans is more interesting and diverse (information-theoretically) than a world with more animals than humans.

We need oxygen, not trees. Algae makes most oxygen. As a matter of self-preservation I'm okay with algae; we can eat them anyway so it's a useful symbiosis.

[imanaccount247]

>Please avoid casually triggering rape survivors

Please avoid insulting people with PTSD by promoting the absurd misappropriation of "triggers".

>1/4 women has suffered sexual assault

That is not true. Repeating made up figures that have been debunked for decades makes it very hard to take you seriously.

[pyre]

> Please avoid casually triggering rape survivors; 1/4 women has suffered sexual assault and using thought experiments that are triggering without any reason to (mugged/murdered would have sufficed) is a way to exclude women from spaces.

Many men (or gender-fluid people) are raped/molested too. Why is your focus so intensely on women when talking about something that should be common all rape-survivors?

Also, first you say:

> I have no moral obligation to perpetuate a species, because a species is a concept, not an actual thing, and it does not have the ability to suffer.

Then you go on to say:

> So, I'd be totally supportive of diffusing birth control for non-human species and just letting them go extinct.

Having no moral obligation towards action (actively supporting a species) doesn't imply the a moral obligation towards the opposite action (actively 'destroying' a species).

[tedks]

>Many men (or gender-fluid people) are raped/molested too. Why is your focus so intensely on women when talking about something that should be common all rape-survivors?

Because women are excluded from tech communities more than men.

Try not to make everything about yourself.

[theworst]

I'd like to sidestep the moral argument for a moment.

One major assumption in your argument is that there wouldn't be unintended consequences. I think humanity should either stop increasing the population or should place a great emphasis on space colonies. Repurposing earth resources from animals to humans is just delaying the inevitable point where human consumption outstrips resources available.

[pyre]

> Repurposing earth resources from animals to humans is just delaying the inevitable point where human consumption outstrips resources available.

Don't worry. The 'market' will find a way. Just place your faith^Wtrust in the 'market' and all will be well!

[PavlovsCat]

If most people thought like you, I'd rather see an Earth without humans than an Earth with just humans.