Many humans "thrive" in conditions that are illegal to put humans in to.
I don't really see your point, since it doesn't even remotely talk about the relative rates of the two populations or compare what would happen with humans to what would happen without for any of the species.
It seems to be contentless objection to what I said, despite the fact that humans are known to greatly increase the prevalence of all of those species, many of which seem to be getting by just fine for many of their members.
> humans are known to greatly increase the prevalence of all of those species
Based on this definition the American colonies helped Africans 'thrive' on the American continent by bringing them over as slaves, and allowing them to reproduce.
I could agree with you in the case of wild animals that mooch off of humans (racoons, crows, rats, etc), but in the case of livestock, or animals raised for the sole purpose of being tested on in laboratory settings (and possibly killed immediately after), I don't think you can really spin that as a positive thing from the perspective of those species.
It would be like an alien species taking humans away to 'domesticate' them and raise them as livestock on another planet. And then hand-waving away concerns about all life on Earth going extinct because the "livestock humans" are 'thriving' because they are bred in large numbers in captivity (and even trying to make it sound like putting them in captivity for such a purpose was actually better for them then letting them live their own lives).
Quote: "There have been five past great mass extinctions during the history of Earth. There is an ever-growing consensus within the scientific community that we have entered a sixth mass extinction. Human activities are associated directly or indirectly with nearly every aspect of this extinction."
>> ... the fact that humans are known to greatly increase the prevalence of all of those species ...
> Not only is that not a fact, but the opposite is the truth. Humans are wiping out other species at an incredible rate.
Okay, now I'm definitely confused: Is English not your native language? Are you very young, perhaps in high school? You don't seem to be reading the claims that you are with such great confidence declaring to be wrong.
FWIW, the phrase "all of those species" in context pretty clearly referred to THIS list of species:
> raccoons, crows, cows, pigeons, rats, mice, dogs, house cats
I don't really see your point, since it doesn't even remotely talk about the relative rates of the two populations or compare what would happen with humans to what would happen without for any of the species.
It seems to be contentless objection to what I said, despite the fact that humans are known to greatly increase the prevalence of all of those species, many of which seem to be getting by just fine for many of their members.