Why is the biosphere allowing itself to be destroyed? Why won't

Holy look at those zeros

File: 20150809_eo[1].png (2MB, 1432x1282px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1432x1282px

>implying it isn't fighting back

Enjoy those cyanotoxins in your municipal water supply

>>2363103
Until billions of humans are removed or Gaea blesses me directly to perform greenwork, no, it isn't fighting back.

File: 2B2FCE1700000578-3189619-image-a-6_1438970054862[1].jpg (85KB, 634x489px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 634x489px

>>2363122
>Billions of humans

Give it some more time.

File: 1432095268436.jpg (23KB, 600x407px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x407px

>>2363125
But that's where most of the remaining NA megafauna is located.

The Earth is just a big rock flying through space with shit living on it, the shit living on it has been wiped out many times before.
It's not being destroyed by people, we can't destroy it, we are animals and a part of nature too. It's our home as much as it is the trees and polar bears.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4

>>2363165
>it's not being destroyed by people
how fuckign delusional do you have to be to believe this?

>>2363000
Kek retarded treehugger, nature forms a new through destruction. Learn the conservation of mass.

>>2363169
You're separation of men and nature is cute. Calm down and let nature take its course.

>>2363201
>>2363198
don't you guys have a neocon kike to worship?

>>2363165
>>2363198
>>2363201
>lololol nuthin matter I can do what I want XDD
Babby's first sophistry

>>2363265
it's appeal to nature, not sophistry

if NATURRR allows it then it must be good because everything NATURRR does is good (disregarding the multiple events in earth's past where shit just freaked out and wiped out almost everything for millions of years). if man isn't part of NATURR man is bad but if man is part of NATURR everything man does it good

in reality, idiots and their ilk use Gaia worship to justify everything moronic they'll ever do. It's just NATURRR, man.

>>2363271
What position are you even trying to represent here?

>>2363288
he didn't take a position, he pointed out the fallacy in one.

though it's a weak argument since if we don't appeal to nature all we have left to consult is personal preference, and our preferences are natural too.

File: 323823.png (388KB, 633x265px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 633x265px

>>2363297
your nebulous conception of nature can never determine what is good or bad, only the summation of your feelings at any one moment. It's a shitty argument, crafted because you're all too afraid to even have feelings anymore.

Nature means nothing, and cannot be used to determine what is right or wrong. Gaia is substituted as an expy for everything that is the eye of the beholder without care or understanding about the subjective element in all of your arguments, and thus is nothing more than a baseline substitute for your personal preferences. It's not even the Lovelockian concept of Gaia anymore, it's just a fucking pinata you beat whenever you feel like justifying whatever bullshit is on the human-induced menu this time.

>>2363305
anyone with an IQ over 130 quickly realizes there's no good or bad, right or wrong, aside from personal preference.

>>2363125
what even is this map saying? thick bitches in colorado?

File: common pepe.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>2363312
>muh moral relativism

>>2363350
moral relativism implies that morals exist.
I don't think morality is relative.
I don't think it exists.

just because you make up some silly bullshit in your head doesn't mean I need to be labeled for my lack of belief in it.

>>2363350
Psh

I think morals only exist from our own perspective, as individuals and as societies. However this won't stop me from trying to live by my own morals and my society's morals, and from seeing morals separate from my own as bad.

Things do not need to be objective to matter. Objectivity is not always the right answer to every situation. I want to feel I live with purpose, and I want to be happy.

Besides, it is entirely logical that groups of people that live by a similar set of morals would need to get rid of people who live by very different morals if they pose a threat to the stability of this group. Whether morals are logical in the sense that they make social cohesion much much easier, which allows us to do a lot of things we can't do as individuals.

>>2363359
*whether morals are logical... -> morals are logical in the sense...

>>2363000
it's not, the biosphere is fine, it's the humans and a human favorable biosphere that is fucked
Humans are fucked, biosphere is fine.

>>2363699
You are absolutely deluded
The biosphere is going through a mass extinction right now, and it will never recover as long as humans exist on this planet
Adaptive radiation will only happen if humans disappear, allowing the ecosystems to flourish rather than being destroyed, creating an enviroment for evolution to occur as animals and plants explode in numbers and distribution
This can only happen if humans are out of the picture , so we better look after the species we have already

>>2363312
You could also like wow try to think about other people you know?
You're talking like a world where everyone thinks the same as you wouldn't be a fucking mess.

>>2363169
>>2363213
>believing in muh global warming

Don't you bernie bros have a "democratic socialist" literal kike to donate your student loans to?

File: hanibrain.png (261KB, 828x960px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 828x960px

>>2365192
>believing in the /pol/ bluepill

lol brainlet

File: pathetic.jpg (39KB, 500x230px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x230px

>>2365192
>MUH JEWS!! FUCKING LIBBRRUULS LOVE JEWS!!!
Nobody loves jews more than the right.

>>2365192
Scott Pruitt is that you?

And here I was thinking nobody that wasn't getting paid by the oil industry could be this fucking daft

>>2363349
Super volcano under Yellowstone. Could erupt any minute now and wipe out the continental United States.

>>2363000
because we are part of it
We aren't an external agent destroying nature from without, we are part of nature and changing it from within as all animals do (on a much smaller scale, usually).
That said, we're a walking extinction event and have, ever since we invented hitting stones with other stones, driven countless species off this planet and reshaped entire continents (but at the same time we promoted and created other species, like any plant or animal we domesticated).
If you like the status quo and species diversity, like I do, then the changes we bring about can easily be seen as negative, but that's a very subjective and typically human assessment.

File: coastal-dead-zones[1].jpg (79KB, 584x426px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 584x426px

>>2365344
"Nature" evolves shit to destroy itself on a constant basis. Mankind is just the latest attempt by "nature" to restore Earth to anaerobia. If you enjoy oceans of hydrogen sulfide and methane, continue being a "natural" part of "nature" brainlets. I will be a Man.

File: Manchineel Tree.jpg (60KB, 590x326px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 590x326px

Nature can fight back. This bastard tree can kill you if you hide under it during the rain or eat it's fruit. Both will poison you.