“According to his theory a species is not only entitled but demanded to do anything in their power for further survival. No matter the fall out to other species. Other wise his whole theory falls apart once you limit a species to moral considerations for other species. For at that point you no longer have survival of the fittest but of the willing. Which throws out the theory.”
This would have serious implications for environmentalists and conservationists. Since there is a huge cross-section between environmentalists and evolution proponents, this sets up a major cognitive dissonance.
I suppose the “willing”, as you put it, do NOT survive because they do not serve self-interest. This has parallel applications to the lazier faire economics vs Keynesian economic approaches. Keynes would argue, as would environmentalists, that taking into consideration of others is, in fact, self-interest. It is a social system argument.
The political nonsense is seriously off topic.
BB, unless you want your thread run into the toilet, I suggest you discourage people from trying to argue from consequence.
Not necessarily. It is my position you must achieve a sustainable balance between preservation and progress.
I was just trying to point out a disjunction in what I see as the views of most radical environmentalist.
As for the economics look at the USA need I say more.