What we are trying to do is accomplish our goals we have for our short lifetime. We are certainly not the only species in the world who does things for pleasure that aren't neccessary for our survival.
> but that is usually due to human influence in the first place
That all depends on perspective. If you look at a big enough time frame- humans can be considered almost irrelevant.
no, we’re not, but we are the only ones who so to the detriment of entire (and numerous) species and ecosystems. for example, we are starving and poisoning after we decimated and traumatized the population decades ago of southern resident orcas. however, we have abstracted our survival and pleasure mechanisms so much that we see this and other such scenarios as an inevitable or unavoidable byproducts.
> That all depends on perspective. If you look at a big enough time frame- humans can be considered almost irrelevant.
that’s a rather silly statement. what is your point? of course if you “zoom” out far enough, nearly everything becomes irrelevant. but with any timescale important to species and ecosystems, humans are certainly relevant and completely detrimental.
That’s a pretty extraordinary claim. Have you considered that every time this happens (e.g. a new predator crossing a new land bridge) it completely wipes out entire species?
although, i suppose if people want to make the comparison that humanity is as mindless as a fungus that causes disease, then by all means.
It's clear that that's not his point. It's hard to take people seriously who don't argue in good faith.
i don't, however, understand the point of your comment.
except we don’t really just maximize our survival. if we did or had the capacity to, we would do things much differently. instead we go well beyond just simply trying to survive. and yes, other ecosystems’ balance can be upset but that is usually due to human influence in the first place. we are different in our behavior.