Is the whole human induced 'sixth mass extinction'

>>8433578
> and why the obsession with classifying human/environment interaction as unnatural?

What are you stupid? Becaue if "unnatural" is to have any meaning whatsoever its "things humans do"

>>8433594
But that's just it, nothing about humans is unnatural.

Bare in mind scientific are unironically defining 'natural' as an arbitrary point in history. I.e. everything before was natural and all change after is unnatural or anthropogenic.

>>8433651
Nonsense, the difference is in self awareness. A lion can not recognize it will run out of Gazelles to eat if it consumes more than they reproduce

>>8433578
It's kind of inevitable.
Humans create whole new biomes while destroying others.
And they (accidentally or intentionally) move organisms over previously isolated areas.

It's interesting, and we should do what we can to slow it (keep the stuff we like), but you can't really stop it without going back to stone age tech.

>>8433578
Is that a giant abo on a hill

>>8433688
>you can't really stop it without going back to stone age tech

^^This^^

>>8433578
ya4stsia

yet another 4chan shitposter that solved it all

>>8433676
Self awareness is not unnatural tho... some animals other than humans aren't far away from having it on some level either. But even if they weren't, its still as natural as the birds and the bees.

>>8433694
Yes. The Big Boong.

>>8433863
What if we advance to the point where our tech has as much of enviromental damage as a stone age man?