kazanscube wrote:
So, the way I see if there is a very small population of animals in an area whereby you kill them off what have you truly gained by doing such?
A sound and demoralizing victory against those who wanted to preserve them.
Political disputes are always about tribal dynamics—the nature of the dispute itself, however serious it might rationally be, doesn't matter to normal humans. If an asteroid threatened to hit the Earth and wipe us out, choosing whether to take any collective action to save humanity or not would still be like choosing a sports team to cheer on. The latter would call themselves "sceptics", or whatever term makes science deniers look good at that time, and would make generous use of their natural right to create, believe and propagate all sorts of anti-science FUD and conspiracy theories to reach the conclusion they want to be true. Not that their political opponents would be any different in this regard—the vast majority of them wouldn't give a f**k about science as such; they'd just treat it as religion, and only by chance would they be supporting the less collectively suicidal course of action.
Needless to say, it would be impossible to get anything meaningful done and the asteroid would end up killing off humanity, but the last audible voice would be that of a self-professed "sceptic" insisting the asteroid is a lie and dying happy and proud of uncompromisingly having shown the finger to the opposite side till the end.
_________________
The red lake has been forgotten. A dust devil stuns you long enough to shroud forever those last shards of wisdom. The breeze rocking this forlorn wasteland whispers in your ears, “Não resta mais que uma sombra”.