In article , Tumbleweed thisaccountneverr
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...
snip

Should we regard the earth as our habitat, and whatever we do to make it
better for us is therefore good, even if it is bad for other species?

Sounds like a good idea to me*. I'm presuming for example, that if you had
lice you wouldn't leave them on your body, even though that is 'good for
you' and 'bad for lice'?

But would I, if I had the opportunity, eradicate them entirely from the
earth?
Bad for an individual louse is not the same as bad for lice as a species


Or is the earth something that should be preserved even if it means
curing our instincts to dominate?

The earth cant be "preserved".

OK - bad choice of word. What I'm trying to get at is the concept of
'treading lightly' - not having a disproportionate effect. Atm we are so
numerous and so technologically capable that simply going about our
business can have a hugely harmful effect on the world - we have to
consciously think about the effect we are having and take measures to
reduce it if we are to balance our effect to be at a similar level to
that of other species.

But even if it could, then that would be
gross interference in itself, if for example you 'preserved' every species
that was going extinct, even if that extinction was nothing to do with us.
That would definitely be a bad thing, from the POV of letting nature operate
unhindered by us.

But I wasn't advocating that, as I hope is now clear.


And neither of those questions is relevant to global warming etc because
if we mess up the earth it will mess us up too. So whether our motives
are to look after it for its own sake or to further our success as a
species, it's still a sensible thing to do.


*Well that should obviously be taken into account when deciding what to do
with our habitat as per the first point. But eradicating, for example the
malaria parasite ,I'm betting you'd regard as a good thing even though its a
'very bad thing' for the malaria parasite.

That's not a question I could answer without knowing where the malaria
parasite fits in with the rest of the world. Do we know enough to know
we could eradicate it without unexpected effects elsewhere?

Malaria is a bad thing for the individual human. There may be ways to
control its ill effects without targeting the parasite itself (OK we
haven't found any yet). But on the global scale, part of the problem is
that we have struggled to the top of the heap so successfully, so that
as a species we have a huge effect on the world. We are now actively
trying to curb global warming - if we don't bother, what might the
scenario be? Does earth heat up to the extent of being home only to a
few specialised bacteria, or do increasing floods etc take their toll on
the human species and put a natural limit to the process?

So really, all you would disagree
with, is in what degree and way you'd interfere, rather than setting
yourself up as some special case who doesn't change the planet and everyone
else who does is evil.

Eh? Are you suggesting I am
setting
yourself up as some special case who doesn't change the planet and everyone
else who does is evil.

That doesn't follow from what I said, so I guess I must have got up your
nose on some previous occasion. Ah well.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"