2 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
Is it even morally wrong to harm the environment? When taking into account that human-scale changes will do almost nothing to the earth on a geologic time scale (life should rebound with new diversity after our Extinction as it has after every mass Extinction), and the fact that humans are open to a much wider range of possible experiences (positive or negative) than other life forms, I really can't see a reason why destroying the environment to improve human condition (for the short time we are on this Earth) could possibly be seen as morally "wrong"...
Comment by jmankhan2 at 26/01/2020 at 04:41 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Although humans have a short lifespan geologically, we have an absurd amount of relative impact. For example, thermonuclear warfare could very well cease all life as we know it within a year or two, and furthermore make it extremely difficult for further life to propagate. Maybe some form of resistant bacteria could survive, but we would be starting over from scratch. Humans are in charge of making sure something of that scale does not happen, and nuclear warfare is only one of many ways it could. Climate change also has an extremely disparate effect on the world's poorest (human) populations, while the wealthy enjoy little to no harm. It is not simply a matter of preserving the earth for the sake of preserving it, climate change absolutely damages the human condition.