Quote:
Originally Posted by suspectnumber961
The big difference is the issue of responsibility?
|
We are the only species that is concerned with responsibility. In fact, we invented the idea. How are we to be held to a moral code that no other species is held to?
Quote:
An indisputable FACT is that humans are the top predator and the species most affecting the biosphere...except maybe for termites, etc?
Except that termites and all other species are acting in accordance within the limits of evolved characteristics that function as a PART of the overall biosphere and within the evolved limits of that biosphere.
Humans are acting OUTSIDE those limits as defined by the environmental destruction they cause...which is documented.
|
How can humans act outside the limits of their evolved characteristics? Every species is limited by their resources, and ours is no different. We either solve problems that limit our proliferation, or we are limited by them. If it is believed that we evolved from more primitive animals, then our actions are natural and justified by law of survival of the fittest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olympiadis
The level of concern is an individual right, and not a problem. Forcing concern on your fellow inhabitants is another thing altogether, and has become quite disturbing.
|
I would like to agree with this statement, however, it seems the issue is more about magnitude than choice. If I could introduce a chemical into a river that kills all life, most people would say I have no right to that action. However, if I take 1 fish from a river and eat it, most would say I have that right. This is what I mean by magnitude. Our disagreements aren't about whether we have the right to impact "nature", rather it is to what degree. The other part of this disagreement is the extent to which we might be impacting "nature", and how "nature" will respond.