Similar Posts

Subscribe
Notify of
13 Answers
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bernhard554
3 years ago

I would be happy

FlockeFindet
3 years ago

If a person is guilty of it -> Retten

If it is the natural process -> let die, but not additionally intervene.

CaptainExit
3 years ago
Reply to  FlockeFindet

Why are you making a difference? I think it’s kind of weird to admit something because it’s the “natural process”. Purely theoretical, the disease is becoming and the human also dies a natural process. That’s why you don’t miss medicines and medical treatment. So where do you draw the difference from when something is a “natural process” where you should not intervene?

FlockeFindet
3 years ago
Reply to  CaptainExit

The main line is drawn between man and nature. So man separates himself from nature.

CaptainExit
3 years ago

Yeah, that’s right. I still find your approach interesting, even though we have different opinions. So thank you for explaining.

FlockeFindet
3 years ago

Something is always.

CaptainExit
3 years ago

I see.

However, it does not affect people in Germany when people die in Afganistan.

Just because it does not directly affect us, it is nevertheless important to get the rats alone for biodiversity. Apart from that, they also act as prey animals, so they also have quite their use. So it may not affect people directly, but the ecosystem and consequently the people again.

FlockeFindet
3 years ago

Does climate change affect people? Yeah.

Does rat mortality affect people? No.

CaptainExit
3 years ago

However, climate change could also be done simply because it is not only humans. So… the human being is inseparably connected to nature or do I see it wrong?

michi57319
3 years ago

But what man does not. He doesn’t care. Otherwise, we would not have lost so many species in recent years.

michi57319
3 years ago
Reply to  Bruno2308

What new species do you want to lead to underpinning?