> If a hypothetical outside observer were looking at our planet, trying
> to pick a species whose elimination would most benefit the planet and
> (the rest of) its inhabitants, I'd have trouble seeing how to justify
> any choice other than Homo sapiens sapiens. At least I certainly hope
> such an outside observer is hypotheical; I _am_ human myself. :-/
I was really not going for this new discussion direction, but that
piece made me do it :-)
Sorry for sounding like its the 19th century, but humans really ARE
the top of the evolution (as we know it). If WE feel like fucking the
planet, we should be allowed to. No number of birds will stop it.
There is no such thing as "the Planet", but there is "an area where
humans happen to reside for now."
Anthropocentrism is not some kinda bad thing; it is the only one that
makes sense. Thus, we need to preserve nature as it serves us - and,
obviously, destroy it as it serves us. Now, making the choice between
the latter and the former is hard in many situations, especially when
short-term considerations (e.g. cut the forests for firewood, extract
oil for fuel) override the long term...
--
Anton Chuvakin, Ph.D
http://www.chuvakin.org
http://chuvakin.blogspot.com
http://www.info-secure.org
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
