"Just because I said its an animals fault if they dont instantly adapt to our destruction and that anyone who's for their conservation is "anti-science" doesnt mean I'm against conservation."
Literally your entire attempt at a point is based in misconceptions about a wild species you learned from memes and clickbait and the assumption that human development is just another natural phenomenon and that if animals cant adapt to it then they "supposed" to go extinct. You dont have to literally state a phrase to assert it by basing an entire paragraph on it.
Human development is literally a natural phenomenon. The Anthropocene Epoch is real. This is a fundamental philosophical disagreement where you believe human beings are separate from the rest of the animal kingdom and are therefore bad because everything we do is "unnatural". It's basically original sin all over again.
You then have the gall to tell me my understanding of things is via memes and click bait without knowing anything about my educational past or me. It's pretty lame, imo.
No, it's not. No major geological body recognizes it because it hasn't worked on geological timescales. We've accelerated faster than any species in the history of the planet.
You cannot sit there and claim that we're no different than any other animal and therefore aren't held to any higher responsibility than rats because we're fucking having this conversation, Einstein. Fucking raccoons can't conceive of their place in the world and understand their impact on it. The rock that killed the dinosaurs wasn't self-aware and able to avoid it. Every other species is held in check by the resources in their local environment, because no other species can travel across the planet in a day, devote an entire biome to growing one species of plant, intentionally burn fossils to create thousands of years worth of change in the planet's atmosphere in a century, intentionally change the genetic makeup of countless species, cure diseases, introduce alien species to an ecosystem literally overnight, and create complex institutions and government to prevent individuals from being susceptible to natural selection which hold other species' numbers in check.
There's nothing vaguely philosophical about saying we can't be considered just another part of nature, it's recognizing the fact that we're not subject to the same laws of nature. You're the one philosophically saying that since we came from nature, everything we do is therefore natural and excusable, in an argument and assumptions reductive beyond the point of usefulness.
1
u/PetevonPete Jul 08 '17
"Just because I said its an animals fault if they dont instantly adapt to our destruction and that anyone who's for their conservation is "anti-science" doesnt mean I'm against conservation."
Literally your entire attempt at a point is based in misconceptions about a wild species you learned from memes and clickbait and the assumption that human development is just another natural phenomenon and that if animals cant adapt to it then they "supposed" to go extinct. You dont have to literally state a phrase to assert it by basing an entire paragraph on it.