No. I don’t think that at all. Anymore than I think the environment has an obligation to accommodate humans.
I don’t think there is such a thing as nature without people. A lot of the ‘humans are evil and the environment is good’ is based on false assumptions. Do you think a volcano cares when it explodes and wipes out entire local ecosystems or is any under obligation to not explode?
As the other comment explains, it isn’t about morality. It’s about practicality. We have the ability to attempt to reduce our impact to keep the planet healthy, so we have an obligation to do so. A volcano doesn’t have that ability.
If we are absolute hedonists, with no long-term considerations, then the world won’t be livable for humans, or many other animals, in a short period. It’s already getting to the point where many previously inhabitable places aren’t anymore, and that’s with some amount (not enough) of harm reduction.
Let’s reduce this to just you, for an example. Let’s say you’re driving your car. Do you have an obligation to attempt to not harm others with your vehicle? Should you try to not run over children, for example? If so then what’s the difference to the original question? If not then there’s something wrong with you.
Nature preservation isn’t about being virtuous or “good”.
Maintaining the greatest possible diversity is how you give a biosphere the best chance to continue adapting, instead of catastrophically collapsing. In case of a volcano erupton, for one.
As an a example, having more than one insect species that pollinates, means losing some of them won’t mean large-scale crop failures. But the fact that there aren’t infinite of them means we could conceivably, run out of them.
No-one who takes minimizing human impact on the biosphere seriusly, is doing it out of a mere desire to not be “evil”.
It’s critical simply in terms of our own self-preservation. The more species exist, the more ways there are for the biosphere to continue functioning.
Which we kind of need it to do in order to eat and breathe.
No. I don’t think that at all. Anymore than I think the environment has an obligation to accommodate humans.
I don’t think there is such a thing as nature without people. A lot of the ‘humans are evil and the environment is good’ is based on false assumptions. Do you think a volcano cares when it explodes and wipes out entire local ecosystems or is any under obligation to not explode?
I’d love for you to go into more detail here, lmao.
As the other comment explains, it isn’t about morality. It’s about practicality. We have the ability to attempt to reduce our impact to keep the planet healthy, so we have an obligation to do so. A volcano doesn’t have that ability.
If we are absolute hedonists, with no long-term considerations, then the world won’t be livable for humans, or many other animals, in a short period. It’s already getting to the point where many previously inhabitable places aren’t anymore, and that’s with some amount (not enough) of harm reduction.
Let’s reduce this to just you, for an example. Let’s say you’re driving your car. Do you have an obligation to attempt to not harm others with your vehicle? Should you try to not run over children, for example? If so then what’s the difference to the original question? If not then there’s something wrong with you.
Oh man I’ve got some really bad news lol.
Nature preservation isn’t about being virtuous or “good”.
Maintaining the greatest possible diversity is how you give a biosphere the best chance to continue adapting, instead of catastrophically collapsing. In case of a volcano erupton, for one.
As an a example, having more than one insect species that pollinates, means losing some of them won’t mean large-scale crop failures. But the fact that there aren’t infinite of them means we could conceivably, run out of them.
No-one who takes minimizing human impact on the biosphere seriusly, is doing it out of a mere desire to not be “evil”.
It’s critical simply in terms of our own self-preservation. The more species exist, the more ways there are for the biosphere to continue functioning.
Which we kind of need it to do in order to eat and breathe.
A guy like that isn’t going to understand any word over 3 syllables. You’re gonna have to use shorter, dumb-friendly words.