Life is a plague on the Earth. I like it better for it, though. Admittedly, my position is biased. Of course, without life, there would be no positions at all. 
Incidentally, plagues are also a natural part of life.
Plagues aren’t just a part of life. They are life*.
Though I admit a bias towards mammalian life instead of viruses, bacteria, and other microscopic organisms.
*with the caveat that viruses as “life” isn’t firmly established.
Oh I dunno…I’m a big fan of anything that produces free oxygen. Close second to mammals.
I doubt “rude” was the word you were looking for, as it implies a system of etiquette. But why would humans be “hastening” the process? We’re part of the ecosystem.
Look, I’m all for saving the bald eagle and the wolf, but only because I like having them around, not because of some pre-ordain reason for them to be here.
Besides, would it be “rude” to “hasten” the extinction of the mosquito that is the vector for malaria? Or the protozoan that actually causes it?
“I’m not a vegetarian because I love animals, I’m a vegetarian because I fucking hate plants.”
Meh. Necessary evil. Like teenagers.
No, it was precisely the word I was looking for, because I was being tongue-in-cheek.
Sure, we’re part of the ecosystem. However, as this planet’s (probable) first sentient species, we are a unique part of it, and have the ability to minimize the collateral damage to other species we cause. Kudzu does not, nor the originators of the Green Plague, nor any other species that has ever built a niche by eating or displacing other species (i.e. all of them).
I am quite prepared to accept a number of losses in furtherance of my species. It was inevitable that we’d trample some habitat, overeat, overhunt…particularly in the days of our global expansion. But we call ourselves Homo sapiens sapiens; thinking is so nice, we had to name it twice. That we have awareness means, to me at any rate, that destroying other species carelessly and unintentionally is, well, rude. 
Clean air, water, old growth forests, the biodiversity inherent in species humanity hasn’t driven to extinction, etc.
That’s pretty obtuse and reductive. I’m sure non-human marine life can assess that massive oil spills suck ass. Polar bears prefer not drowning in search of ice, etc.
Not at all.
Fine. Extend it. “the status of the planet as a comfortable place for large (say > 500g by weight) creatures to live”?
We can’t even do this much. Oil spills suck ass. But ocean life persists, even in oil spill zones.
We literally cannot make it impossible for the earth to sustain life. It’s not possible for us, even should we use every nuclear weapon in all the arsenals on earth. Something in some thermal vent deep under the ocean would survive. Some cockroaches would make it. Some small animals would make it. And life would continue on.
No, we wouldn’t make it. And neither would most mammals, large lizards, birds, or fish. But life itself would go on.
Saying that letting these other creatures take over from mammals is somehow “worse” is purely based on a human value system. That they even have inherent value or that their “right” to exist itself can be infringed depends on a human value system.
The planet itself doesn’t care, and life would go on in any case. We do not have the technology (nor will we in the foreseeable future) to destroy all life on earth. So, yes, it is entirely based on a human value judgment that one set of lifeforms is preferable to another.
Are you a philosophy major by chance?
Biodiversity and a non-poisoned / non-irradiated planet are objectively better. But from your point of view, since irradiating the entire globe to the best of man’s ability would stop short of killing protozoa, roaches, and blind cave fish it cannot be impartially ascertained which result is better. I disagree. Assessing the conditions most beneficial for biodiversity is not an exclusively human ability. At most, it an intelligent one. Great, so let’s say Uatu the Watcher is our observer for all we know of intelligent life in the universe. There’s always some intelligence somewhere in the great infinity that could make a judgement if absolutely needed in order to argue conceptually vs the most plain, apparently reality.
…for humans.
You’ve already forgotten Uatu?
So, I was ignoring it because the idea of objectivity deriving from some hypothetical outside observer is too silly to address.
But sure, ok, Uatu. Kdapt, Juju, whatevs.
Why are you so convinced he finds carbon-based life objectively better? What makes you think he does not appreciate a nice healthy dose of background radiation? Why is he judging this particular arrangement of life objectively batter than any other? One species’ poison is another’s perfect growth medium.
Look, I’m down. I’m a crunchy hippie socialist vegetarian Buddhist rationalist humanist Portlandian. I’m not taking any issue with your argument that biodiversity and “healthy” ecosystems are better for us, and for the world I want to leave to my kid.
But it is in no way objectively better.
OK, then I guess we’re rude. Sue us.
What do you mean by that? That only humans benefit from a non-poisoned environment since “life” in the broadest sense would persist and eventually re-evolve to cope? Or do you mean that “objectively better” is a strictly human concept?
My feeling is, the fact that the ecosystem is delicately balanced and would take a long time to get itself back into whack ought to be a strong enough reason to make an effort not to throw it out. Even if it’s difficult to articulate a rationale that is 100% snark-proof.
It’s always in balance. It’s just that you like certain types of balance.
I’ve never thought that humans were a “plague”, but I’ve often wondered why our species doesn’t “fit in”. By that I mean there’s no set place in the ecosystem for us–our actions aren’t keyed to the flora and fauna around us anymore. ((f that makes any sense) For a single species to be set so far apart from the other life forms may have explanations, but it still seems weird to me.
I can’t help comparing the tone of this thread with the claims by many that if we allow gay marriage the very fabric of society will be rent asunder.