what is this suppose to mean i don't get it
and ants have more importance then us considering our importance is negative and there importance is more then or equal to 0 considering they're apart of a food chain and we made our own artificial food chain with farms
so i guess yeah in a way your right is is dumb to "COMPARE ANTS TO HUMANS AS IF ANTS HAD THE SAME IMPORTANCE AS HUMANS" because they are more important than us

Even though we are technically not an invasive species we are in the definition of invasive species because we need to introduce something to a foreign land to make it invasive making us worse than an invasive species

You're all still thinking about this from the wrong perspective, maaaaaan.

You're thinking that if it's good/bad for the environment then that means it's worth more/worth less. This is narrow thinking. Try to think about all the other lens you could be viewing this issue through, so you can see this issue more fully and clearly.

For example, you could look at this issue by questioning the value of culture (are we more important since we have a rich and advanced cultural history) or even by questioning the value of our unique, advanced consciousness (could we be more important since we have self-awareness and are capable of philosophical introspection).

Let's start to see some different kind of answers, the discussion is starting to get stale and circular.

but why does being cultured self-aware and capable of philosophical introspection have to do with being important what even is importance?

but if you consider the potential of the human species you may find that we have the ability to stabilize ecosystems and even reintroduce them to places that no longer can support them.

all of you that are saying humans effects are only negative are forgetting that we have only recently confirmed the majority of our negative effects and can actually repair alot of it.

fire ants can destroy ecosystems too.

Exactly! That's what I was getting at a few pages back when I said to stop looking at this issue from the point of view of Mother Gaia.

"What even is importance?"

What does it mean to be a more important lifeform? Surely it means being more than just being helpful/harmful to the planet, right? If aliens came down and rated all of the lifeforms on Earth, would their criteria for rating them be solely dependent on how environmentally good the lifeform is for the planet?

As Ele said, let's not forget value is 100% subjective.

Most of you seem to be weighing it from a help/harm to earth standpoint (which is ridiculous, because humans conquer subdue and ravage the earth), when in all honesty you probably most naturally weigh this question from an emotional standpoint. Even if you don't have emotions for something yourself, you might give more importance to something "because it was somebody's dog - they loved that thing."

From a purely moral standpoint, that the taking of life is wrong, their values are assumed to be equal.

There's literally so much to this issue and so many different platforms you could argue from that I'm quite certain no one will actually come up with any infallible answer to this question

This message has been deleted

This thread completely hinges on the "what is importance" question, because the nature of comparing the value of an ant's life to the value of a human's life requires you to establish what exactly value is. What context are we supposed to derive value from? You're quite blatantly picking and choosing from both an emotional and a environmental standpoint, saying that fire ants are bad for the ecosystem (even though they do have a place in the ecosystem and play important roles) but start attempting to mention societal constructs (cities, technology, culture) when asked if humans have a net positive contribution to the ecosystem.

This message has been deleted

What the fuck is with this "muh environment" shit

There have been several mass extinctions before humans ever existed. What happened during each one? The environment changed each time, obviously, but it seems to me like you guys think the environment is just something that's always existed in this exact pristine state and humans are ruining it.

No, we aren't ruining it, in fact, we are the environment for the most part. Who gives a shit if backwards leaping frog tree turtle dropbears survive this environment? Every single environment in history has had winners and losers. If something we would prefer survives the environment is being threatened, we can either manipulate the environment to guarantee its survival, or we can get something else to fulfill that function. Granted, we can't do that for every possible thing, but eventually we will be able to.

If you value the life of an insect as much as the life of a person, what about the life of bacteria? They are living organisms as well. Do you realize how many of them you're killing every time you brush your teeth?

So let me put it in a way that you can understand. People matter to other people for the same reason that anything matters to anyone. Other people can be very useful. You know how to work metal and nothing else? Cool, joe knows how to farm and will trade you food for metalwork. If Joe dies, you no longer have food unless someone else knows how to farm or otherwise obtain food. Is Joe important? Not quite. The important part is the information he holds, which can mostly be used by any being with the faculties required to understand and use it. That is the most basic form of value that exists. Other than that, there is sentimental value, reproductive value, and other various forms of value.

Do you see what I'm getting at?