:: SDF: Oh, come on, NJ, just come out and say he's wrong, challenge him! After all, the human race is responsible for the sort of global ecological devastation that will mark the end of a geological era,
Speculation.::comparable to that which occurred the end of the Cretaceous Era 65 million years ago, that is, if there are any humans left to observe this fact when it's finished occurring,
More speculation.
:: that is to say, in some distant future when I am dead. This hardly marks humanity as "superior".
We'll just pretend that was logic and Sam can pretend he knows things.
:: What it does say, however, is that the human species did produce an individual that it named Charles Darwin, and who warned us near the beginning of THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES that species that were too successful at existence within a niche ecology (as human beings are) were in danger of overpopulating their niches, and dying en masse as a result of having depopulated their food chains. And then, we might observe, the human species ignored the possibility that Darwin's warning might apply to THEM. Previous civilizations (the Romans, the Mayas) have collapsed due to ecological overexploitation, but none so spectacularly as the one on Easter Island, which stands as an example for us all...
I know! Great example! The population of Easter Island is gone while the rest of the planet flourishes. What point? That Easter Island is a microcosm of the earth as a whole? Your kidding - right?
:: For humans, being the most versatile and successful animal of such a body size (ants may be more versatile, and furthermore have a bigger brain-to-body ratio than humans), have up to today overpopulated every niche they could possibly overpopulate. It is only through human intelligence that humanity has defied Darwin's warning, for now.
But that doesn't mark as superiority when millions of other life forms have gone extinct? Go figure what's in the heads of leftist malcontents. Mush - best I can tell.
:: Nevertheless the possibility that humanity could exploit itself to death, soon, remains a significant one.
Only if your ideology is to remain intact.
:: It's also a majority opinion so it's still legal to eat animals.
:: SDF: The fact that an opinion is a "majority opinion" has no bearing on whether it's true or moral.
Never said it did.
:: This is a basic argumentative fallacy that can be read in any standard textbook on argumentation or debate.
I said it was legal and I'm motivated to keep it that way. Read the thread.
:: A majority of Nazis supported genocide. Medieval Europe believed the Earth was flat. So what? Are we to support genocide and believe in a flat Earth on their "majority opinions"?
No, I guess I want to give you one more opportunity to miss the point so you can compare meat eating with their moral equivalents; genocide and ignorance.
