My point is that all humans do this, to live, we must kill huge numbers of animals, be it through growing crops to feed animals to feed us, or growing crops to feed us. We kill when we drive cars, when we clean our homes of pests, it's what we are, it's what we do. You know, I don't even really know why we're still talking to this point. I think that even though we're looking at two different sides of the same dice, we still agree. Let's table it. . . . The society of the 2100's is going to seem just as insane, unreasonable, as today's society seems to those in the 1900's. Again. We are in agreement. You're taking things way, way too far with this. Developing technologies that increase the efficiency and healthfulness of behavior such as farming, mining, and manufacturing is something that we should greatly encourage. Not because it'll allow us to do more, but because it'll allow us to do more with less. The same logic should go towards developing our understanding about the natural world. We need to use what we know not to control what we have, but to preserve it, to nurture it. Even if we could control the natural mechanisms of the world, even if at some point we become mature enough to think that it's a good idea, we're talking about the whole planet here. It's too big, it's too important, to take that risk. Look at us. We are beautiful, but we are flawed. Throughout history, what we've created that should be considered great, we have used to cause harm. We created a system of trade to make life easier, we use it to control each other. We learned to forge metal and shape wood to create tools, we use them to create instruments of war (don't take this the wrong way, cause I actually support national defense systems). We harnessed the power of the atom, and we made the most horrible weapon we have yet to realistically imagine. I don't care if we're 10,000 years into the future here, in an unfathomable utopia, there's still the horrifying risk that we can mess it all up. To a lot of points, you and I agree. However, at the same time, I'm also inclined to disagree. Without getting into geopolitics or the mechanisms of economics or anything else I'm not really qualified to even really think about seriously, let alone discuss, I have to say I lack a lot of faith on this point. We have a long, long way to go until we consider ourselves mature as a species. When it comes to how we, as cultures and nations, corporations and individuals, conduct ourselves, more often than not we behave like an alcoholic about to fall off the wagon. We know where our behaviors lead to, both through past experiences as well as deductive reasoning. We know what we can do, should do to change, but we often don't do it, because we care more about that immediate gratification now, then the consequences of tomorrow. Yeah. Poverty is a mechanism of economics. Sure. Corruption is a risk of governance. Ok. We all know this. The thing is though, through flaws such as greed, selfishness, apathy, cowardice, and negligence, we let this behavior happen way more frequently than it should. Let me reiterate, it doesn't have to be as bad as it is right now, but we let it. We, as a collective whole, tsk our tongues and shake our heads saying "something should be done about this" and then go about our day, expecting someone else to do what we ourselves choose not to do. No. That's the exact opposite of biodiversity. Biodiversity means having ecosystems with as many numerous different organisms as possible. The more, the merrier. The more vital, the better. It is absolutely important to have. With diversity comes protection from collapse. The great potato famine is a perfect example of this. With diversity comes knowledge. When we study plants and animals, we often gain new insights that help is everything from medicine to agriculture to industry and design to, once again, environmental preservation. The fact that we have gone through multiple mass extinction events in our planets history and yet we always somehow bounce back to a diverse ecosystem with niche species illustrates that natural mechanisms not only favor diversity, but encourages it. It's for our own good to continue to behave in manners that do the same. Stewardship is something that is very, very important for us to take on. It encourages us to think about how our actions not only affect us today, but tomorrow, a decade from now, centuries from now. This type of mentality, when we embrace it, can help us develop behaviors that not only affect the environment, but other aspects of life. It is a key component that help us combat the issues that I keep on harping on, such as poverty and oppression. Furthermore, when we decide to embrace the virtue of stewardship, it enables us to value things beyond ourselves, and in doing so, encourages us to become good for the sake of being good. Look at this Reddit thread. It's about a guy, working at Wal-Mart, cleaning a bunch of Beta cups. It's a simple thing, something some people reading this might scoff at and say "So what, big deal." Look at what is of value here though. The OP feels good about what he did, allowing him to further value himself. People who are looking on are encouraging him, creating a sense of community, a sense of solidarity. Lastly, there is a discussion about how keeping Betas in cups, even if only temporary, isn't the best thing in the world. People are looking at a small problem, something that could stand to be changed, and are promoting it. Every single one of those things are positive behaviors that are fostered by a sense of stewardship. If we all took that mentality, in someway shape or form, and tried to apply it wherever possible in our lives, we will develop behaviors that allow us to not only better ourselves, but the world around us. Protecting the natural world, for all of its greatness and all of its flaws, is one of the greatest things we can do to foster that mentality.I was not refering to unsustainable behavior there, but the idea that animals, creatures, forests, and so on, have some right to exist, and that human beings are/should be of equal consideration. A human should not destroy a forest to build a home, for example, as it kills many animals, drives them from their homes.
I do not refer to the modern day, the idea that we should disrespect and disregard nature today, as we don't have the capability to replace it's purpose, yet.
In a few more, I'd be willing to bet we will figure out and learn to take care for a whole lot more of nature than you would expect, especially if we royally screw up and cause a crisis/collapse that forces us to figure it out and fix it.
[Society is constantly developing, constantly getting better.]
I agree, but I see a world where biodiversity means farms planted with many crops who have had key genes mutated to ensure they are resistant to multiple diseases, not untouched forests.