Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 1058341" data-attributes="member: 4720">This is a bit OT, but...That is a very humanocentric notion and depends entirely on your frame of reference.For example, take a look at all the forests in the American West which are packed to the gills with extremely dry fallen leaves and branches.&nbsp; The ones where we're constantly fighting forest fires (Most of which, btw are caused bt lightning strikes.&nbsp; Gosh, I wonder how the forests took care of themselves before we came along <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes&nbsp; &nbsp; :rolleyes:"&nbsp; data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> ).&nbsp; A Neutral Good fighter or wizard would make note of the homes of the people who have decided to live in the forest and all the animals in that area and jump in on the side of the firefighters controlling the blaze.&nbsp; A Neutral Good druid or ranger worth his salt would be busy setting fires and sabotaging firetrucks.&nbsp; &quot;Why?&quot; you ask?&nbsp; Because he would know that the forest had reached a point where it requires renewal, and the death of a few thousand trees and animals would enrich the soil and get rid of the overgrown forest canopy which is choking out undergrowth, thereby allowing a vast increase in biodiversity and would allow tens of thousands of plants and animals to thrive in a space that is currently choking itself out of existence.&nbsp; Increased biodiversity would benefit the forest as a whole, as well as the local human population.&nbsp; Taking the long view, killing a few thousand trees and animals is actually the ONLY good thing to do, provided you do it the right way.&nbsp; Logging the same area would destroy it, whereas burning it is part of its natural ecology.I could give you more examples, but they would get increasingly off-topic.&nbsp; Suffice it to say, there are *many* instances where killing something can be a good act, either out of compassion or by taking the ecological long view.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost, post: 1058341, member: 4720"] This is a bit OT, but... That is a very humanocentric notion and depends entirely on your frame of reference. For example, take a look at all the forests in the American West which are packed to the gills with extremely dry fallen leaves and branches. The ones where we're constantly fighting forest fires (Most of which, btw are caused bt lightning strikes. Gosh, I wonder how the forests took care of themselves before we came along :rolleyes: ). A Neutral Good fighter or wizard would make note of the homes of the people who have decided to live in the forest and all the animals in that area and jump in on the side of the firefighters controlling the blaze. A Neutral Good druid or ranger worth his salt would be busy setting fires and sabotaging firetrucks. "Why?" you ask? Because he would know that the forest had reached a point where it requires renewal, and the death of a few thousand trees and animals would enrich the soil and get rid of the overgrown forest canopy which is choking out undergrowth, thereby allowing a vast increase in biodiversity and would allow [b]tens[/b] of thousands of plants and animals to thrive in a space that is currently choking itself out of existence. Increased biodiversity would benefit the forest as a whole, as well as the local human population. Taking the long view, killing a few thousand trees and animals is actually the ONLY good thing to do, provided you do it the right way. Logging the same area would destroy it, whereas burning it is part of its natural ecology. I could give you more examples, but they would get increasingly off-topic. Suffice it to say, there are *many* instances where killing something can be a good act, either out of compassion or by taking the ecological long view. [/QUOTE]

Verification