Dylan NICHOLSON wrote:
> <big snip, read the thread from the beginning!>
>> I still feel you are working on the assumption that species also need
> other species to survive. Presently this is certainly true. But it is
> also certainly true that humans HAVE A CAPACITY to great all their own
> food and shelter without the need for other species. Currently we do not
> because it is more efficient to let other species do it for us, but as I
> keep emphasing, our genes have evolved because of their capacity to survive
> MOSTLY AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS. Thus it is hard to see why they should not
> encourage us to keep surviving at the expense of others. If we don't want
> this then we have to actively go against our genetic programming.
I'm not assuming anything. We do need other species to survive. Humans do not
have a capacity to create all of their food and shelter, and it will always be
more efficient to live with other species than to do it all ourselves. You are
the only person who I've ever heard say that humans are evolving toward a state
of self-sufficiency. You now say that we survive at the expense of others, but
earlier you said *all* others. Do you see yourself losing ground yet? We do
live at the expense of others, just not all others. That is how things work,
but that does not mean that we live at the expense of entire species.
Destroying dozens of entire species doesn't help us, but you keep saying that
it is natural. That makes no sense. Please attempt an explanation of why
destroying the rainforest is a natural thing...