Humans then?

Sure? I mean, we obviously don't want to eliminate humans, but it would probably be nice to have fewer of them. The ZPG movement isn't terribly controversial.

Well no, we’re special and the universe exists for our pleasure.

It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the big bang again.

Why not? The universe is a blank canvas upon which we can write our own purpose. Human pleasure seems like as good of a start as any.

Because we tend to do this at the expense of every other living thing. It’s also very presumptuous.

I think the most effective motivation to keep nature and life has historically been to maintain it for human pleasure

Similarly I don't think there is anything to offend with presumption, or at least anything that cares.

All the other species that aren't humans probably care.

The system exists to create Humans and see us flourish. God acts through us. This is evident to Zen masters as much as it is to Buddhist monks to Catholic priests and everything in between. Everyone has agreed on this except for Satanists. The self hatred you have is ironically somewhat justifying your argument, that there are at least a subset of humanity which is a stain of shit on the earth.

How exactly does the system makes humans more worthy than other animals?

It doesnt. He hasnt controlled his human ego

The system placed us at the top

Except we created the system, we placed ourselves there...

>Everyone has agreed on this except for Satanists

You have a dangerous lack of fundamental understanding of the topic to which you speak. I suggest you start your learning journey here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism is incompatible with determinism. The world follows mathematical laws.

> Atheism is incompatible with determinism.

No, its not.

Argument by dismissal and hand waving at your opponent is generally how you left wing people debate.

No, its not. See, e.g., most of my post history.

Sometimes, OTOH, completely moronic ideas are offered without any support, and without it, contradiction is all they warrant.

I won't debate any further with someone who resorts to name-calling or dismissive language. You didn't provide a proof of contradiction or any argument. I provided valid reasons and evidence to support my point of view.

> I won't debate any further

You weren't debating before, just posting unsupported conclusions with no argument in support, and complaining about responses in kind.

You're right, but you are being pretty harsh and insulting, and it does distract from your point and make it just about impossible for the other commenter to hear what you're saying.

Why do they have to be designed?

Complexity implies a creator if you can't cite the theory of evolution. You are trying to say "nothing" designed them and they lack any intelligent design. GA have intricate, complex rules and codes. There is and has only been one version of the algorithm.

I find the atheist to be the largest proponents of determinism. Most religions Embrace some idea of a soul, free will, and agency.

On the other hand, almost every atheist I know believes in some form of material determinism. For them, individual Behavior is entirely driven by the physical makeup of an individual and their interacting environment. They deposited if you had a sufficiently accurate model of the universe you would be able to determine every action they would make.

We're working on it!

Not humans, but farming practices and human diets. We have to reform agriculture to stop and reverse biodiversity loss.

Deforestation and farming practices (incl. pesticides/herbicides, pollution) are the main drivers of biodiversity loss.

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob...

Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss

Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-bi...

The way we eat could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050

Two recent studies underscore the danger the meat production system poses for biodiversity.

> We have to reform agriculture to stop and reverse biodiversity loss.

Sure! Do you have a proposal to make agriculture more eco-friendly without impacting quantity, quality and cost of the food produced?

> The key is reducing meat consumption

No! If you really want to achieve something, rather than just talking ecology, the key is not to try and force change on the general population.

> Do you have a proposal to make agriculture more eco-friendly without impacting quantity, quality and cost of the food produced?

Sure.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471

Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable

A global shift towards healthy and more plant-based diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies are required to feed 10 billion people sustainably by 2050, a new study finds.

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449

How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm

Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w

Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...

Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

> If you really want to achieve something, rather than just talking ecology, the key is not to try and force change on the general population

The change is absolutely needed.

https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability...

One study estimates it would take just over 5 Earths to support the human population if everyone’s consumption patterns were similar to the average American.

We don't have those extra Earths, and won't anytime soon.

> the key is not to try and force change on the general population

Sure, solve the biggest problem we've ever faced, but we don't want to change a thing.

That is such a clear example of Chesterton‘s fence, it makes me mad people can’t see it.

Not by any means do we understand enough about ecosystems to justify the hubris to declare any animal as a net negative effect to the environment.

In western Europe, hunters argue they need to cull deer, for example, to keep the forest in balance. That is only true because a) they make an effort to feed the animals during the winter, helping more to survive than otherwise would, and b) because natural predators have been eradicated in the previous centuries.

Don’t ever trust someone that attempts to justify culling a species for the greater good.

I don't disagree that our hubris gets us in trouble, but we do have eyes, some animals when introduced cause very quick changes to ecosystems and I don't think it's hubris to say "oh fuck, we goofed". I don't condone cullings specifically but I think conservation absolutely requires controlling non-native species in certain circumstances. New Zealand has had enumerable species go extinct thanks to introduced species.

The obvious one is usually feral cats, which end up killing birds in large numbers if they haven't dealt with cats before. And a lot of those tend to be escaped house pets.

> feral cats, which end up killing birds in large numbers ... escaped house pets

I'd argue that it's also a problem of biodiversity (at least in the U.S., don't know about New Zealand). If we hadn't eradicated almost all wolves, coyotes, foxes, birds of prey, weasels, and I don't know what else, nature would have solved the problem already.

Problem of biodiversity is one way of putting it. New Zealand did not have any mammals apart from bats. When those arrived, the native wildlife were not equipped to deal with them.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoat_in_New_Zealand

Even a common rat caused a number of species to go extinct in NZ. I can't imagine any conservationist would agree that we should let a common rat kill off dozens of incredibly unique species of such a one of a kind ecosystem, just in case the rat has a net positive effect in the long term.

Now that is hubris, what the hell do we know about long term net positives? Selfish warm feelings, while watching the reality of introduced extinction take place in a matter of mere decades. Pardon me.

many of the predators we eliminated also ate the same birds and rodents that the cats ate.

N = 1 but the cats I’ve seen around my neighborhood seem to be quite well cared for and simply killing for the sport of it, toying— ok, perhaps I’m anthropomorphizing— with their prey and often, IME not eating it at all

(in North America) and if we hadn't hunted and driven away the bobcats lynx and ocelots that would have killed those bird for food (along with the weasels stoats ferrets ermine mink foxes and other predators) how many birds would they have killed?

Generally speaking, if prey and predator evolve together then the prey have adapted and have a fair chance of escape/survival.

Non-native introductions usually have the issue of such a sudden population explosion that the prey cannot adjust in a timely fashion and get killed very quickly, very suddenly.

Fortunately for the birds then wild cats such as lynx bobcat and ocelot close cousin species to house cats were among those species we removed from the ecosystem before we introduced Felix catus.

We’ve introduced millions of cats into areas that haven’t had cats at all, like the entirety of Oceania.

Sure and that was bad. However using New Zealand as an excuse for pearl clutching in North America over cats, when there were several species wild cat here already not to (mention many other predators) that we decimated the populations of is disingenuous at best.

The counterpoint to this is the real issue overpopulation of whitetail deer has caused in the eastern US over the past 30 years or so.

I grew up in Virginia so here's one specific example: https://dwr.virginia.gov/wildlife/deer/deer-management-progr...

> because natural predators have been eradicated in the previous centuries.

Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that the population really does need to be culled.

Or predators could be reintroduced.

With deer, the problem is often not an excessive population but rather their tendency to stay in one place, destroying young shoots and plantings and hindering the growth of the plants we care about.

In contrast, with predators they cannot stay in one place for long enough, allowing most plants to outgrow their vulnerable size and survive.

It isn't Chesterton's fence though. We removed the fence (wolves in your example) and have now discovered why the fence was there, and have now stepped in to build a new fence.

Also removing native species and sending the balance out of whack is different to removing a non native species that has sent the balance out of whack.

> We removed the fence (wolves in your example) and have now discovered why the fence was there, and have now stepped in to build a new fence.

This isn’t quite accurate, though. Between removing the fence and getting fence construction inclinations, a lot of time has passed, and in the meantime, nature did lots of stuff we hardly understand.

Assuming otherwise is just repeating the same mistake again. Feral donkeys might be part of a new ecosystem now.

Maybe, but that's just an excuse to never do anything.

And we can be fairly sure about some things.

Rats in new Zealand, rabbits in Australia, cane toads in Australia, etc, etc.

Further it takes time to remove these populations, so you can observe what happens when they're removed from a local area.

In most cases, we objectively do know. Unless there's a yet unheard argument for cane toads and feral camels.

> I think there's an argument that if an animal is having a negative effect on the ecosystem (having a negative effort on other animals) removing it can be a net good.

Are you suggesting Genocide? /s