[big_curses]

This is going to come across as a nitpick on the title, the idea is taken farther in the article and I think it's an important distinction.

No, we should not build for wildlife. We should only build for people and what is good for people's lives. The only question then is, "what is good for people?". If not harming the biodiversity in a region and having more green spaces are good for people (which they likely are), then we should do it, but it is not the case that, as the article says, "whenever we build something...it's our responsibility to accommodate wildlife that would be displaced otherwise". Our only responsibility is to our own lives and the rights of others, animals do not have rights and cannot even conceive of them. If people want to help animals because it makes them happy, that's great, but we don't owe any moral responsibility to them.

[seltzered_]

This is called anthropocentrism. When you consider the amount of biodiversity loss and other land-use changes that've happened over the past 100 years, along with the civilizational collapses that've happened in prior history with that view, perhaps you'll change your mind.

Start with learning about the planetary boundaries framework: https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-bound...

[big_curses]

Yes, but if biodiversity loss and changes in the land caused by some action we've taken leads to civilizational collapse, then obviously that's not good for our lives and we should stop doing it. If biodiversity has effects that are good for us, then we should build things with that in mind (I only say "if" here because I have not read much in depth on the effects of lessening biodiversity, although it's pretty obvious how it could be destructive). I support infrastructure that promotes biodiversity, but disagree that we should do it for the animals, we should do it for us.

[jklinger410]

The good news is that what is good for humans is to maintain biodiversity and what's good for biodiversity is good for animals. We are currently deficient in this area, so even if the world was full of big_curses we would still need to make some progress in protecting wildlife, if even for our own selfish reasons.

But you are wrong that animals don't have, or cannot conceive of, having rights and that we don't "owe" them anything. The truth is that we owe all living things the right to exist in the same way your rights are granted by the constitution. It may be a tough to shake off a barbaric mindset like the one expressed above, but if you don't want society to leave you behind, I suggest you try.

[big_curses]

> The good news is that what is good for humans is to maintain biodiversity and what's good for biodiversity is good for animals.

Exactly, which is why I'm generally in support of building things in a way that maintains biodiversity. But we should be doing it for us as the principle driving this action, even if the outcome seems the same.

> But you are wrong that animals don't have, or cannot conceive of, having rights and that we don't "owe" them anything. The truth is that we owe all living things the right to exist in the same way your rights are granted by the constitution.

Which animal can grasp a philosophically grounded conception of rights? If they can't do that, they do not know of rights. Certain species of primates may react to what they perceive as fair and unfair, but this is founded in emotion and social habits, not reason, which is required for a conception of rights. You will never see an animal respecting your rights, they simply happen to act in a way that doesn't directly infringe on them, but only sometimes. Also, I should clarify, just because animals don't have rights doesn't mean it is good for us, as individuals, to do anything we want to them at any time. Unnecessary cruelty is not good for an individual psychologically, in addition to the fact that it does not add to your life in any way.

[asdff]

What is good for biodiversity is good for us because we rely on biodiversity to generate crop varieties to feed ourselves.

[big_curses]

Exactly, so this would be a legitimate reason for us to support biodiversity.