|
The idea is kind of myopic because it assumes a certain moral value to the environment we have now, I.e. that "saving" the environment means preserving the *exact* ecosystem we have right now. The environment isn't going anywhere, and a million years from now some form of plants and animals will still be there whether people are around or not. Eliminating humans isn't going to keep the panda around unchanged for the next billion years. The real danger is that global warming etc isn't "destroying" the environment, its "changing" the environment into one where the plants and animals we like (including ourselves) are no longer well suited. From the point of view of a disinterested alien third party, having whales and pandas and poo poo isn't inherently preferable to having giant cockroaches and some weird fungus that thrives in the radioactive remains of our ruined cities. Assuming your supervillain doesn't get the irony of eliminating humanity in the service of a goal only humans can or do care about, the disease thing is probably the way to go. The earth did the meteor thing once and it changed the ecosystem a lot more than people ever did.
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:47 |
|