>>41471
>Viruses are a more reasonable example. They contain genetic information and exist to reproduce it, yet aren't considered to be alive.
Are you on drugs?!
Because you have to be absolutely stoned to have "never" realized that.
>It is possible that eating cannot be divorced from causing suffering no matter what you choose to consume.
How about just basic living? Plowing that field to plant a garden (Either for food or just visual pleasure) may be of benefit to you, but what about all the mice, groundhogs, and worms that you kill and displace in the process? I have a jar, right now, sitting on my windowsill with a homemade mixture specifically designed for the express purposes of killing flies in my home. Am I "cruel" for doing this without taking into consideration the feelings of the flies that I am intending to exterminate?
>you are still killing the trillions of various human cells which make up your body and the bacteria that inhabit it as well
Again, you do that through basic living. Although the body also has the case that those cells die because of "old age". For example, your skeleton replaces itself every decade.
>Factory farming is also quite evil the way it is currently handled.
You guys have never heard of Temple Grandin, have you?
>Biodiversity only decreases every day
And those claims have repeatedly proven to be Grade A certified BULLSHIT:
>How scientists debunked one of conservation’s most influential statistics
https://archive.ph/5Jur4
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/13/indigenous-factoid-nature-80-percent-false-biodiversity-aoe
<The statistic seemed to crop up everywhere. Versions were cited at UN negotiations, on protest banners, in 186 peer-reviewed scientific papers – even by the film-maker James Cameron, while promoting his Avatar films. Exact wording varied, but the claim was this: that 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity is protected by Indigenous peoples.
<When scientists investigated its origins, however, they found nothing. In September, the scientific journal Nature reported that the much-cited claim was “a baseless statistic”, not supported by any real data, and could jeopardise the very Indigenous-led conservation efforts it was cited in support of. Indigenous communities play “essential roles” in conserving biodiversity, the comment says, but the 80% claim is simply “wrong” and risks undermining their credibility.
<The carefully worded article, written by 13 authors including three Indigenous scientists, had been about five years in the making. But it raised other questions: including how a foundationless factoid got so much traction – and what other inaccuracies were circulating.
<“There were policy reports using it. There were scientific reports. It was cited in more than 180 scientific publications,” says Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares, an ethnobiologist at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and one of the authors of the article. It was checked as “true” by a dedicated factchecking organisation, and quoted by numerous news organisations (including the Guardian). Fernández-Llamazares stressed they did not blame those who used the figure. Instead, he said: “What we are questioning is: how can it be that this figure has gone unchallenged for so many years?”
>UP-Led Study Challenges Global Claim of 73% Decline in Wildlife Populations
https://archive.ph/jPiHY
https://www.up.ac.za/news/led-study-challenges-global-claim-of-73-decline-wildlife-populations
<Referring to the headline claim of a roughly 70% global wildlife decline, the study’s lead author, Stuart L. Pimm, Extraordinary Professor at UP’s Conservation Ecology Research Unit (CERU) and Doris Duke Professor of Conservation at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University in North Carolina, USA, said, “It’s not even remotely true. For example, in the [Worldwide Fund for Nature’s] Living Planet Report 2024 the graph showing the supposed year-by-year inexorable decline in wildlife uses a little elephant as the symbol to plot the data. In fact, Southern Africa – by which we mean the middle of Tanzania southwards – holds 75% of savannah elephants and they are slightly more numerous than they were 25 years ago. This was shown by a major paper from CERU a year ago.”
<Prof Pimm added that the debate in southern Africa is increasingly about managing abundance, not preventing extinction. “As we all know, the problem we face in this area is that some think we have too many elephants. Kruger [National Park] may consider culling them, those in Addo [Elephant Park] are on contraceptives, and for those in Botswana, there was the threat to ship thousands of them to Germany in protest over that country’s complaints about hunting.”
https://archive.ph/3hckv
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12935029/
<The Living Planet Index and the ever-changing iterations of planetary boundaries for biodiversity integrity or health are inappropriate, misleading, and will harm on-the-ground conservation efforts.
https://archive.ph/JqREe
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0030535
<Anthropogenic global changes in biodiversity are generally portrayed in terms of massive native species losses or invasions caused by recent human disturbance. Yet these biodiversity changes and others caused directly by human populations and their use of land tend to co-occur as long-term biodiversity change processes in the Anthropocene. Here we explore contemporary anthropogenic global patterns in vascular plant species richness at regional landscape scales by combining spatially explicit models and estimates for native species loss together with gains in exotics caused by species invasions and the introduction of agricultural domesticates and ornamental exotic plants. The patterns thus derived confirm that while native losses are likely significant across at least half of Earth's ice-free land, model predictions indicate that plant species richness has increased overall in most regional landscapes, mostly because species invasions tend to exceed native losses.
>Humans being the animal of logic
Where the Hell did you get that from when we have an entire history saying the exact opposite? And it's arguably because of our propensity to disregard logic and engage in mass stupidity that we have come as far as we are.
>>41472
>I was implicitly advocating for the collapse of China and a culling of the African populations to stop the overexploitation of marine ecosystems which has led to critical depensation of multiple species.
That's not going to be enough. What about how the Middle East, that used to be the "basket of civilization", has spent the past fifteen hundred years as a desert? Except for the one country filled with Kikes. Or how the USSR adopted Lysenkoism, which was then exported to West Taiwan?