>>24490572
The person to whom I was responding intensified their critique of the so-called "anti-human" character of leftism by accusing it of being "anti-existence". Now, unless you're so deluded as to think that humans are all which exist, then it's perfectly acceptable to point out that a campaign against the innumerable species which constitute nature is evidently "anti-existence". Not to mention, of course, the obvious presence of war, which the right-wing governments of the US, Israel, and Iran are fast drawing us into.
>Parks are good as long as they serve human interests, such as our esthetic enjoyment or having places better fit for weekend family escapades
Are you unfamiliar with what biodiversity is and its ecological connections to productivity or stability? Looking after nature is a human interest because humans are part of nature.
>You want to reduce human ability to expand or use elements of nature for reasons that you admit are not in any human interest
Banning fracking which has historically contaminated water supplies is in human interest you goon. Did you even read my post? If you had, you also wouldn't have skipped over the explicit reference made to indigenous communities that rely on the Amazon. You claim to be arguing in human interest yet it's clear you're only concerned about a very particular kind of human, eh? Not someone living in the Amazon and not someone who lives in a rural Western area liable to have their environment poisoned because of this obsessive right wing need to profit endlessly.
>Enjoy deindustrialization. Enjoy reducing the energy we can use
I didn't advocate for that. I said we shouldn't continue to deforest the Amazon or engage in fracking. There's quite a wide domain of economically productive activities you can engage in without needing to turn one of the most unique ecosystems on Earth into another beef farm for cheaper cheeseburgers.
