Absolutely untrue. Any animal, if allowed, would exploit its environment to the largest available degree. Of course, for animals whose technology isn't as advanced as ours, the available degree is much lower, and thus negative feedback cycles are easier for us to see at a micro-scale. However, we're subject to exactly the same laws i.e. when one kind of resource becomes depleted, we cannot afford its extraction and usage, eventually famies spread and millions of humans die etc.
But the problem occurs because humans dont really have limitations on exploiting the environment they live in
They definitely do, on a macro (well, let's just say larger) scale. Deaths from pollution, energy depletion, famine etc. are an example of negative feedback mechanism at play
Absolutely untrue. Any animal, if allowed, would exploit its environment to the largest available degree. Of course, for animals whose technology isn't as advanced as ours, the available degree is much lower, and thus negative feedback cycles are easier for us to see at a micro-scale. However, we're subject to exactly the same laws i.e. when one kind of resource becomes depleted, we cannot afford its extraction and usage, eventually famies spread and millions of humans die etc.
Agreed.
OP, I interpreted your post as more metaphysical than naturalistic. So in that vein I'd agree with [MENTION=10315]Aquarelle[/MENTION].
Well i dont see whats happening in small scale is a problem, its just the normal course of life and most imporant the balance is restored without there being any significant problems occuring outside the small scale changes since other animals only has an effect on one of few species. Also other animals dont really cause other species to get extincted, unless they are introduced to totally new environment, like people taking cats to new zealand to freely much on stupid slow animals amd having no natural enemies. But even in that case it doesent destroy the whole system and damage remains in micro-scale. Humans on the other hand destroy so many micro-scale systems that they start to have effect on larger scale. But humans dont only stop to that, they also destroy habitat from multiple species, destroy ozone layer that destroys habitat from many species etc etc. This is what i consider a problem. You disagreed with op because you saw an alteration of a single micro-scale system as a problem?
+1. Didn't you take ecology in school? You know the classic problem of deer and wolves with oscilllating populations that are only relatively stable due to the predator/prey relationship? Without the wolves killing them, the deer literally eat everything in the forest and starve to death....and that actually happened, it wasn't just a theory, unless they lied to me in school.Absolutely untrue. Any animal, if allowed, would exploit its environment to the largest available degree. Of course, for animals whose technology isn't as advanced as ours, the available degree is much lower, and thus negative feedback cycles are easier for us to see at a micro-scale. However, we're subject to exactly the same laws i.e. when one kind of resource becomes depleted, we cannot afford its extraction and usage, eventually famies spread and millions of humans die etc.
Well I do agree that it's a problem for the planet earth, but I think that humans are subject to the same kind of negative feedback loop cycles...I'm not sure if we actually disagree?
+1. Didn't you take ecology in school? You know the classic problem of deer and wolves with oscilllating populations that are only relatively stable due to the predator/prey relationship? Without the wolves killing them, the deer literally eat everything in the forest and starve to death....and that actually happened, it wasn't just a theory, unless they lied to me in school.
The real problem is not that we're "selfish" or whatever, it's that we don't have predators or anything else to keep our population in check.
Or maybe you just feel like disagreeing
Or maybe [MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION] is an idiot, considering that's the conclusion after reading nearly every single one of his posts.
Yeah, probably true, because we have the higher cognitive function to question our own existence.
But, we're also the only animal that drinks milk beyond infancy, and from another species at that, so there you go.
Absolutely untrue. Any animal, if allowed, would exploit its environment to the largest available degree. Of course, for animals whose technology isn't as advanced as ours, the available degree is much lower, and thus negative feedback cycles are easier for us to see at a micro-scale. However, we're subject to exactly the same laws i.e. when one kind of resource becomes depleted, we cannot afford its extraction and usage, eventually famies spread and millions of humans die etc.
Well i dont see whats happening in small scale is a problem, its just the normal course of life and most imporant the balance is restored without there being any significant problems occuring outside the small scale changes since other animals only has an effect on one of few species. Also other animals dont really cause other species to get extincted, unless they are introduced to totally new environment, like people taking cats to new zealand to freely much on stupid slow animals amd having no natural enemies. But even in that case it doesent destroy the whole system and damage remains in micro-scale. Humans on the other hand destroy so many micro-scale systems that they start to have effect on larger scale. But humans dont only stop to that, they also destroy habitat from multiple species, destroy ozone layer that destroys habitat from many species etc etc. This is what i consider a problem. You disagreed with op because you saw an alteration of a single micro-scale system as a problem?
agree with all of the aboveAgreed.
OP, I interpreted your post as more metaphysical than naturalistic. So in that vein I'd agree with [MENTION=10315]Aquarelle[/MENTION].