Quantcast
View Post
VAMatt said:
Eagle367 said:

Tell me what your metric is because my initial claim wasn't about where we are vs where we were, it's about properly handling ourselves. We can't solve simple issues with two neighbouring countries, how are we in a position to take care of every species on earth. That was my premise and you yourself are helping my case here. You're not really arguing against me here neither am I against you. We are just talking about 2 different things

Okay.  I'm not going to argue that humans are perfect.  We clearly are not.  But, I hold to my claim that were better off now than at any other time in human history.  

As to the premise that humans need to take care of every species on earth, I'd just have to say that I disagree.  We need to take care of ourselves, and we only need to care about other species to the extent that their survival significantly impacts our own.  And, it appears that, in most cases, those two things are not related to a large enough degree to matter.  

The ongoing growth in human population and resource consumption is changing the planet in fundamental ways. One consequence of this growth is the loss of biodiversity, which is typically estimated either by the net movement of species towards higher categories of extinction risk or as the rate at which species are actually going extinct. By either measure, biodiversity loss is on the rise. As species disappear we lose both known and unknown benefits they provide

Apart from the loss of richness to the human experience if ecologies are lost, there much we don't understand about the complex web of life and how it will ultimately affect us, for our own survival it is logical to maintain as much of the Worlds biodiversity as we can