Sometimes I think you are just pretending to be outrageous. Surely you are aware of the concept of interdependence, its the new mantra of the new capitalism that you love so much. The error in tyour last statement comes from your assumption that the unthinking elimination of "harmless or harmful" species is always beneficial to human's welfare, nor at least no "big deal", as you put it. You must be aware that the delayed effects of environmental damage is poorly understood by current science. With the accelerated pace of man-made environmental damage, this deficiency in understanding puts human future in great jeopardy. For example, by the time we notice the damage from air pollution to ancient architectural landmarks in your beloved country, Italy, it is too late to do much. In China, the campaign to eliminate the four pests, flies, mosquitos, and what not, caused birds to die and forest to shrink and famines to following a few years later. As Budhhists say, all life is sacred. Any deviation from that fundamental tenet runs the danger of leading to justifiable genocide. Even as a diehard capitalist, you can't afford to narrow the food chain. At least stay on the positive side of capitalism, which is negative enough without elaboration.
Henry
Carl Remick wrote:
> Re Enzo's: "OK, some species may disappear: big deal,
> it's not the first time. As human beings are a part of nature, I can't
> see why we should feel guilty for anything that improves our welfare
> relatively to other components (which, incidentally, never showed any
> concern for us)."
>
> As another subtle observer of nature's miracles, Ronald Reagan, noted:
> "You see one tree, you've seen 'em all."
>
> Carl Remick