• PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It’s a moral consideration this isn’t a fucking logic problem.

        I don’t value ecosystems, but I do value animal lives. Unsure how I could be wrong about that on a moral level.

        If a pack of dogs was loose in a forest; I would not kill the dogs, for example.

        • Adlach@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Don’t be silly. All moral considerations are logic problems. Theory without praxis is immaterial at best and concern trolling at worst.

          And ecosystems are made up of a sum of lives, animal and otherwise. Their collapse inherently kills animals. There is no moral superiority in allowing deaths by inaction.

      • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Having the same moral value for a fire and living creature is wrong.

        You can do a million things other than kill them to fix the problem… but killing them is cheapest, so that’s what’s done.

    • GlueBear [they/them, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I mean I’m not gonna kill myself because a few billionaires fucked the environment.

      I feel like blaming the whole human species for ecosystem collapse and climate change isn’t fair since we’ve existed for millennia, and the world was fine then.

      “The industrial revolution and its consequences”, not “the human species and its consequences”