> Nature, as a whole, is full of equilibrium, but single species try to maximize their survival in any way possible. We are not that different.
except we don’t really just maximize our survival. if we did or had the capacity to, we would do things much differently. instead we go well beyond just simply trying to survive. and yes, other ecosystems’ balance can be upset but that is usually due to human influence in the first place. we are different in our behavior.
Maximizing survival goes beyond "simply just trying to survive"
What we are trying to do is accomplish our goals we have for our short lifetime. We are certainly not the only species in the world who does things for pleasure that aren't neccessary for our survival.
> but that is usually due to human influence in the first place
That all depends on perspective. If you look at a big enough time frame- humans can be considered almost irrelevant.
> We are certainly not the only species in the world who does things for pleasure that aren't neccessary for our survival.
no, we’re not, but we are the only ones who so to the detriment of entire (and numerous) species and ecosystems. for example, we are starving and poisoning after we decimated and traumatized the population decades ago of southern resident orcas. however, we have abstracted our survival and pleasure mechanisms so much that we see this and other such scenarios as an inevitable or unavoidable byproducts.
> That all depends on perspective. If you look at a big enough time frame- humans can be considered almost irrelevant.
that’s a rather silly statement. what is your point? of course if you “zoom” out far enough, nearly everything becomes irrelevant. but with any timescale important to species and ecosystems, humans are certainly relevant and completely detrimental.
> no, we’re not, but we are the only ones who so to the detriment of entire (and numerous) species and ecosystems
That’s a pretty extraordinary claim. Have you considered that every time this happens (e.g. a new predator crossing a new land bridge) it completely wipes out entire species?
if it's extraordinary, can you provide evidence otherwise? can you provide examples of any other species that has wiped out entire species, multitudes of species, and at increasing rates? i didn't list any because i don't know of any.
that's a rather specific example that i personally don't think is relevant to the discussion. for one, fungi are not even animals. and it's a very specific disease tied to a certain class of species. humans have affected a greater number of species across all categories and are doing so at an increasing rate. there is no other event in history like this that was caused by a single animal species, that i know of.
although, i suppose if people want to make the comparison that humanity is as mindless as a fungus that causes disease, then by all means.
it's clear that that wasn't my point, and it's also clear that that wasn't my summary of their point. i answered their point directly, and in good faith, above that. i don't know why you're honing in on what amounted to a joke, although if one zooms out far enough, it might not be hard to think of humanity as mindless.
i don't, however, understand the point of your comment.
except we don’t really just maximize our survival. if we did or had the capacity to, we would do things much differently. instead we go well beyond just simply trying to survive. and yes, other ecosystems’ balance can be upset but that is usually due to human influence in the first place. we are different in our behavior.