• vithigar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    “Nature” also has lots of suffering in it even without our help. I agree we shouldn’t cause undue harm, but the suggestion that animals won’t suffer without us is naïve at best.

    My condolences for your kitty, but nature would not have granted her the more peaceful end you gave her.

    • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Pretty sure I already specified unnecessary suffering, I didn’t suggest that animals wouldn’t suffer without us.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      i like the ever so slight implication here that a handful of deer could presumably cause global warming if we just didn’t exist now.

      I wonder how likely that is to be true.

      • grandkaiser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Human-accelerated global warming wouldn’t happen via a handful of deer… But global warming was going to happen even if humans never existed. Global temperatures have waxed and waned since before life existed. The only difference here is that we’re pressing on the gas pedal (literally) and accelerating the process. The idea that global temperatures would have never climbed without humans empowers denialists by giving them a strawman to point at.