I don't think we need to read this as misanthropy, necessarily.
> By any definition humans are an invasive species. Unfortunately killing our fellow humans has been a competitive sport from time immemorial.
Perhaps the point that we, to, are an invasive species is intended to inspire a bit of compassion within us for the hogs, toads, rabbits and whatever else.
I'm not sure how much I agree -- the invasive hogs really are damaging to the ecosystem. Though, manually going out to shoot them seems like a questionable means of controlling the population. And they should be killed as mercifully as other species -- they didn't ask to be invasive, after all.
>Misanthropy disguised as concern for the environment does not contribute to the discussion.
The importance of language and the dispassionate and accurate employment of accurate definitions is neither misanthropy or related to environmental concerns.
>Edit: Given your username, I’d expect more faith in humanity, not less.
Personally, that the largest and most productive societies on earth dedicate a large portion of their resources to building weapons of mass destruction isn't something that inspires much faith in humanity. Props to Petrov for acting with more sense then most of the rest of humanity.
Though I understand, and in a way agree with your point—that human changes to the environment are as natural as that of beavers—, I think one important difference is the scale of those changes.
Ours are not as natural in the sense that we no longer rely on our inborn capacities to produce those changes.
Yes, in a way we are like beavers in our engineering. But we are insanely overpowered beavers. The scope of our changes puts us in a class of our own.
So if we call changing the environment by one's own means only 'natural', and massively changing it by compounded means 'artificial', we are not natural, not as beavers. Ours is artificial.
So contrary to what you said, that distinction makes at least some sense.
Modern human civilization is the apex predator that still often feels and acts like it is prey on the African veldt. So you get insanely overpowered beavering while some of us still compare us on the same level as beavers.
Yes, I am definitely suggesting wolves (not "wolfs") did not build ships or airplanes and migrate around the world in an astonishingly short amount of time. They migrated slowly, on foot, as they were able to by following food sources, and using land bridges since wolves can't cross oceans.
Same goes for viruses (I'll give you a pass on that one, it's more accepted now than "virii"): they don't float across oceans in a week, unless they're carried by birds (which most aren't).
