Said the human, apparently blithely unaware and certainly dismissive of any possible bias.

The infinite animals, on the other end, made no such genocidal claims. In fact, on the whole, they were about 100% less fond of ethnic cleansing than the hairless apes.

Not satisfied with continuing their perverse murder of the biosphere, the apes regularly turned on their own also, inventing ever-more horrifying methods of doing so. This didn't seem to register on the human who proclaimed such inherent value in human life in the slightest.

In fact, at that current moment multiple genocides were happening, some of them with the full-throated support of that human's voted-for government. Some 40% of citizens and 90+% of politicians and media figures were not only ignoring said mass murder, but in fact paying for it.

You might find this hard to belive, Xanthrax, but these humans are so thoroughly convinced of their superiority by an effect they themselves have identified and named: the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Snark snark baby, Xethrop out.

Is it genocide if you breed more of them than you put down?

It can be depending on the context (cultural genocide, for instance, often involves mass rape of native populations), but it isn't in this context - it's just mass slaughter.

Most animals would genocide the entire planet if they could. If there are too many of a certain species, they are entirely capable of extinguishing entire populations of the animals and plants they eat. Some of them, like cats, wipe out the animal population of an entire area out of boredom.

This is the same attitude a toddler has. Pure Id and zero rational thought.

I'd sacrifice a billion mice to save my child, so would any parent. You sad incels have no love in your life and its painfully evident.

What if I would sacrifice a billion human lives to save my child? That's hardly the basis by which to decide which lives are valuable and which are valueless.

If you think 1 billion mice and 1 billion humans are equivalent then you are truly psychotic.