Reads more like a screed than an essay. I agree with other commenter so far argument provided is weak. I found lots of false equivalencies, and unsupported logic. This one example was striking:
> But like all organisms, modifying our environment is how we live.
This is seemingly a tautology and/or trivially true. Of course organisms existing within and as part of an environment change it by their very existence. If there is a more profound statement here, it must be proven.
> To limit it is to limit human life.
Nope, this does not follow (even if the premise were true). False dichotomy.
Consider, if we limit the behavior of an unruly dog, are we limiting dog life? Maybe, but if we tell the dog "bad dog" when it is chewing the couch, is dog life therefore limited?
> To limit us, and not other animals, is to single out humans for punishment and degradation.
The premise is flawed, therefore the conclusion is moot. Further, this is an appeal to emotion & not reason. To which my response is, even if the premise were valid- so f'in what? Is it really a bad thing? Is human nature so good that limiting it is invariably bad? Why then do we have laws and government? What is more, why should we consider treating humans equally to other organisms as equitable? Is there no distinction between humans and other organisms?
Humans drive other species to extinction - so perhaps holding ourselves back a little (also called restraint) is not a bad thing (even if it does not feel great, it is perhaps an example of a local minima being a global maximum). The author does not discuss or acknowledge other possibilities either, which is a false dichotomy.
> The premise is flawed, therefore the conclusion is moot.
Yes but not in the way your dog analogy argues. The reality is that anything humans chose to do is be definition in our nature so strict environmental policy is not a limit on our behavior, it is our behavior.
> holding ourselves back a little (also called restraint) is not a bad thing
Of course, but you have to accept that our desire to preserve nature is selfish or else you end up seeing humanity as a cancer to be destroyed instead of the most advanced part of nature to be promoted.
It's selfish and limiting in the same way that going to the gym and eating well is limiting. Maybe the view of progress that says lazing around and eating sugar (poisoning our water supply, endless pollution, etc) will come home to roost. Ironically enough, we have already implemented lots of anti-progress memes like the EPA and CAA after seeing the fruits of progress!
Right, but like diet and exercise, we protect the environment for our own benefit, including our ability to visit untouched ecosystems. We dont protect nature because it is more important than humanity.
When I hit the text "single out humans for punishment and degradation" I immediately thought of the old chestnut about being so accustomed to getting whatever you want that restraint feels like oppression.
> But like all organisms, modifying our environment is how we live.
This is seemingly a tautology and/or trivially true. Of course organisms existing within and as part of an environment change it by their very existence. If there is a more profound statement here, it must be proven.
> To limit it is to limit human life.
Nope, this does not follow (even if the premise were true). False dichotomy.
Consider, if we limit the behavior of an unruly dog, are we limiting dog life? Maybe, but if we tell the dog "bad dog" when it is chewing the couch, is dog life therefore limited?
> To limit us, and not other animals, is to single out humans for punishment and degradation.
The premise is flawed, therefore the conclusion is moot. Further, this is an appeal to emotion & not reason. To which my response is, even if the premise were valid- so f'in what? Is it really a bad thing? Is human nature so good that limiting it is invariably bad? Why then do we have laws and government? What is more, why should we consider treating humans equally to other organisms as equitable? Is there no distinction between humans and other organisms?
Humans drive other species to extinction - so perhaps holding ourselves back a little (also called restraint) is not a bad thing (even if it does not feel great, it is perhaps an example of a local minima being a global maximum). The author does not discuss or acknowledge other possibilities either, which is a false dichotomy.