What's best for Earth?

I don't think that's at all "obvious". I don't think that what you describe is what is best for human beings. I want what is best for human beings. I think that what is best for human beings requires some measure of conservation. I certainly don't affirm the absurd extreme position of extinction of all but human beings.

My environmental goal is not necessarily minimizing human impact of the environment.
My Environmental goal is to maximize human well being.
What you describe above does not achieve that.

 

I applaud your honesty. Misanthropy is the fastest growing religious belief system in the world today. Misanthropy is what unites environmentalists, socialists and the rest of the woke-left.

Misanthropists are left to believe that the 'original sin' is exactly human beings multiplying, filling the Earth and subduing it. They believe that that's THE problem. As a humanist, human beings multiplying, filling the Earth and subduing is my goal for the Earth. I want to see human beings take dirty and dangerous wilderness and restore it to a garden that is clean and safe for human beings.

As far as I'm concerned, when the last human dies, you might as well blow up the Earth. Apart from its value to human beings, the Earth has no value. The Earth and all that is about it derives its value from its value to human beings.

 

The notion of "value" is nothing more than a concept of thought created by humans to justify their destructive and greedy natures. Nature does not care about the value or absence thereof regarding any particular thing, nor do any other species found within the animal kingdom, outside of the human species itself. Intelligence, it would seem, is nothing more than a blight and curse, as the species regarded as being the most intelligent is also the most destructive. Humans are the only species that dedicate its supposed intelligence to looking for greater and greater ways of killing itself off. The species does not wish to survive, and it is going to ensure as much collateral damage as possible in wiping itself out of existence.

 

Does anyone miss the dodo, or the passenger pigeon? How about smallpox?

 

I miss the song of the Whip-poor-will in the Twilight hours. We hear it here no more.

 

It is the animals we know that we will miss.

 

As I wrote above, I am not a misanthrope. I am a humanist. I love human beings. The rest of the planet, and all else that is about it is ours. It belongs to human beings. I have no fondness for "nature" apart from human beings.

 

At present the existence of nature is the only thing serving to keep the human species from succumbing to cannibalism.

 

"Nature"? The "nature" of what?

 

We don't have to worry about the Earth. It has done just fine since its creation. We cannot effectively control the climate. But we can adapt to it. Just as animals have done for thousands of years.
We can plant trees. Protect the critical rainforests. We can "chip in" to the Countries relying on deforestation for money.
We can build more public transportation and so on.

Plus we can stop building in hurricane and flood prone areas

 

"Nature" as in the sense of all other wildlife and species that humans rely on for food. The greater the expansion of the human species, the more that other non-human species will be driven to extinction. And with the insatiable desire for meat-based diets the species is engineered to crave and need, eventually there will be no alternatives for meat except for other humans. The dominating species will eventually have to devolve into livestock to sustain itself under the humanist principle.

 

If "nature" is "all other wildlife and species", is that which is uniquely human 'unnatural'?
If you start with the conclusion that humans, and all that is uniquely human, are unnatural,
you are a misanthrope. I am not. I love people. I value people above the Earth and all else that is about it. Indeed, as far as I am concerned, the Earth and all that is about it, has no value apart from its value to human beings.

 

Under what basis can humans be regarded as being anything other than unnatural?

 

Nothing is "unnatural". There is the natural and the supernatural. Nothing is unnatural.

"Unnatural" is a misanthropic term reserved for human beings and that which is uniquely human.
I don't have a misanthropic bone in my body. I love people. I am a humanist.

Human beings are the pinnacle of nature. All else in natural derives its value from the value it has to human beings.

 

So, being a human being it derives its value from you or what it means to you.. Sometimes it ain't all about you.

 

The human species is unnatural for being an outlier in a world full of species that have demonstrated themselves as being able to evolve and adapt to their surroundings. Humans do not evolve, nor do they adapt. As a species they are deprived of outer coverings to provide insulation against the weather and the elements, and instead are forced to create artificial coverings to make up for this shortcoming. No other species demonstrates this shortcoming unless they have been specifically engineered to demonstrate such shortcomings. The species does not adapt to its surroundings, it instead destroys in order to create workarounds for its weaknesses that cause harm to the environment as a direct result.

The human species could best be considered as nothing more than an invasive species, no different from fire ants in any nation, or giant land snails infesting the state of Florida in the united states. It demonstrates all of the characteristics of a virus.

 

Try to think in terms of us. It's not only you.

 

I thank you for your honesty. You are a misanthrope. I am a humanist. I don't have a misanthropic inclination in me. I love human beings. I want what is best for human beings.
I want human beings to multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it.

Almost everything human beings need to survive is the product of industry. Industry is the combination of material and ingenuity. The only difference between a raw material and a natural resource is that a resource is a material that can be combined with ingenuity. We can never run out of material. We can't even destroy material; all we can do is change its form, but we can stifle ingenuity.

Ingenuity has a voluntary nature. In other words, true ingenuity cannot be compelled. Indeed, ingenuity is stifled by compulsion. That is why misanthropes flock to authoritarian systems such as those currently exemplified by the variants of Marxism/socialism.

Once again, with sincerity, I do appreciate your honestly. Unfortunately, we cannot be any further apart.

 

That's already been done, to a level that isn't sustainable. So, a logical humanist position really requires supporting a slow decline in the number of humans. It's only a fantasy humanist position that would want a population increase.

So your claim is that using the standard definition of a word makes someone a misanthrope. That's absurd. You're really stretching here to get reasons to demonize most of your fellow humans. Someone here is a misanthrope, and it appears to be you.

 

Is it misanthropy? Or is it merely acknowledgement of having recognized a truth of fact that most simply do not wish to acknowledge?

The world is filled with horrifying diseases that kill indiscriminately, many of which are still being discovered even today. No one has been able to identify or determine where these diseases come from, how they come into existence, or why so many of them exist when their only purpose is to kill so many. Yet these diseases do not seem to affect the native animal species that reside within the same regions, and who even play host to them.

The simple truth of the matter is that eloba, malaria, west nile virus, eastern equine encephalitis, and countless other assorted diseases and pathogens are actually the antibodies of the planet, trying to protect it from the foreign invader that is the human species. It is the most logical conclusion to explain why the world is so inhospitable to the human species, yet so welcoming to so many other species. Antibodies protect the host body from pathogens by killing said pathogens with extreme prejudice, and diseases like ebola can wipe out a densely-populated continent in short order if left unchecked. It is a most accurate and appropriate comparison. Hemorrhagic fevers and the like are essnetially the white blood cells of the planet.

 

I have no good reason to believe that we cannot continue to increase in population, longevity and well being as long as we do not stifle ingenuity.

 

It is ironic that your feelings for the planet are expressed by anthropomorphizing the planet.

 

Why are you not suicidal?

 

Why aren't those who consider human beings to be a "virus" or an "invasive species" suicidal?

 

The most logical approach to pursue... IMO. Is to work with nature. I have more land than I can take care of but I also have kids. If I keep water consumption under 2000 gallons a month it is free. And I Like fish. Anyway.... my cleanup crew at work.