Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

Assume the baby bunny waterboarders are on a different planet if your weird system of morals somehow implies that *that* is what matters

"Alien creature from the outside" was more like "outside nature". Guess that was crappy phrasing on my part. I don't hold The Ecosystem as a *moral* value at all (environmentalists usually do), only as a practical case of "will that fuck shit up somehow".

Other than that... "nature is red in tooth and claw" and such. Nature is far less kind to *itself* than environmentalists want to be to nature. :P

Bizarre to assume that you don't have any obligations to or within a system precisely *because* you're a part of it. Does this extend to families, workplaces, etc?

To put it in a different way: by the very definition of "nature", humans aren't doing anything that nature itself doesn't do. Would it be "immoral" for species X to drive species Y to extinction? No? Then why does that answer change if species X is homo sapiens?

If humans weren't a part of nature, you could plausibly suggest that this is "unnatural", which is what environmentalists say. Since they are... there's nothing unnatural about a super-predator being a super-predator. We're already all playing by the same rules.

Are you seriously suggesting that any behavior we can witness in *some* species is automatically acceptable behavior for a human being?

Intra-species, no. Obviously not. But then again, different species are already different enough on this. In terms of nature as a whole? Inter-species? Not if you define the object towards which the moral obligation is directed as "nature".