2 upvotes, 6 direct replies (showing 6)
In doing so the beaver creates others habitats for different creatures. The beaver doesn't eradicate entire species and cause the planet to be uninhabitable. Terrible comparison.
Comment by captainsolo77 at 25/01/2020 at 16:44 UTC
10 upvotes, 1 direct replies
The initial premise was “affecting the environment“, not destroying the environment
Comment by widget66 at 25/01/2020 at 16:56 UTC
7 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Many species have been eradicated by other species before and I would argue it doesn’t make the species evil.
The planet has gone through several mass extinction events, some caused by flora and fauna. I would argue that this doesn’t make this ancient flora or fauna. The mass extinction events may result in an earth inhospitable to the previous ecosystem, but new life comes out of it. Even mammals arose out of a mass extinction event.
I think there is an argument to be made that humans are in a unique position as the first species to be aware of our direct impact on a mass extinction event, and therefore we are making a decision. I would argue the awareness is the differentiator, not the outcome.
Flora over-oxygenating the atmosphere and causing a mass extinction event still caused mass death and the eradication of species, but was without any awareness.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
Comment by [deleted] at 28/01/2020 at 01:04 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
If beavers eradicated a certain species by building dams, couldn't that be "morally right" in the sense that a different species that was once hindered by the presence of the species that the beavers eradicated, can now prosper and grow in the eradicated specie's place?
Don't you get it? If you allow one species to live, you're preventing another species to emerge from its absence. That's how the circle of life works. Something has to die for something else to live.
Just because you save a species doesn't inherently mean you're doing the "right" thing. Because by doing so, you could be preventing other species to grow.
Comment by Thameez at 25/01/2020 at 16:58 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
It creates habitats for species who are able to adapt to the dam. If human pollution/waste allows some animals or organisms - such as cockroaches, bacteria etc to thrive, doesn't that mean that it could be analogous to dam-building?
Comment by MustLoveAllCats at 26/01/2020 at 01:19 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
The beaver doesn't eradicate entire species and cause the planet to be uninhabitable.
So as long as we don't render the planet uninhabitable (Which we won't, there will be organisms that survive regardless of what we do), and as long as we don't eradicate entire species, but rather keep a few of them alive in zoos, then it's not morally problematic? Great to hear, thanks.
Comment by [deleted] at 25/01/2020 at 17:46 UTC
-2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
And human beings create habitats for other human beings, the dominant species. You cannot convince me some finger size minnows are more important that people.