They won't care. 10 million years after we wipe ourselves (and unpleasantly many of them) out, it will be hard to tell we ever existed, aside from the dip in fossil diversity right after. The raccoons might take up the yoke of sentience.

I chuckle thinking about future sapient trash-pandas discovering human landfills and worshipping the Ancient Ones who very clearly created this bounty for them. "They were so prosperous they put boxes of food on every street corner for our early ancestors."

I'm really curious why you care about the ecosystem if humans went extinct. It feel extremely unnatural to me, to put another species over their own.

It's possible to extend empathy to all living creatures, not just those similar to oneself. Or to put it another way, to take the view that all living things have equal value on a grand scale.

But if one takes a completely objective viewpoint, what makes humans special? We’re no different than beavers who make damns and flood a river. Sure we do it on a larger scale but are we any less “natural” than any other species? Keep in mind the fact we “care” is irrelevant and no more important than a beavers urge to build a damn. It’s all driven by genetics.

I mean oxygen producing single called organisms drastically altered the environment. They were not conscious to actually notice, but we are. But tons of species went extinct and the earth was irrevocably changed due to their presence.

Thinking humans are special on the cosmic timescale is just arrogance.

> Thinking humans are special on the cosmic timescale is just arrogance.

Agreed - I don't find anything to disagree with in what you're saying.

To quote ambassador Spock: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

Unless there are aliens around, there won't be any "many" left after humanity goes extinct - at least not until another sapient species evolves.

Only sapients have needs?

To a first approximation, for a definition of "needs" that doesn't count bacteria as having them, yes.

If it's just a question of numbers, we should prioritize the survival of ants over our own. Not a good argument.

The needs of the many legs outweigh the needs of the few

If you're counting species, beetles.

the needs of the haves outweigh the needs of the have nots"

This type of self-defeatist attitude I can only imagine comes from suicidal people. It makes no sense unless the person saying it has given up on living.

They might have given up on allowing you to go on living.

He wants us dead, but is not willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good. These "idealists" and the rest of Malthusians are just a cancer.

you don't have to be a malthusian to find the destruction of the natural world to be sad

I'm not talking about concerns of having a healthy environment and a clean planet. I'm talking about population control that Malthusians want to impose so much, always on others, not on them.