dimreepr

Who said that...

I changed my post and forgot to change "we're all" to "you're". A minimal impact on the environment would make the search more difficult.

I think we're all assuming that (possible) industrial civilisation would follow the same destructive path that we are. A slightly different mindset could result in a civilisation that had a minimal impact on the environment.

Yes, I know, but it was an opportunity to expand on my point (I agree on the weed exemption ). BTW my tongue was firmly in cheek.

I think you're probably right. Nevertheless, a valid question I think.

http://theconversation.com/more-bad-news-for-dinosaurs-chicxulub-meteorite-impact-triggered-global-volcanic-eruptions-on-the-ocean-floor-91053

Well, clearly you do. Since most herbivores are considered lunch, it's reasonable to assume their ethical code would be OK with killing those that put them on the menu.

Indeed, but that's because they assume the moral high ground due to their conscious choice, why would a natural herbivore assume the same?

I'm not sure there are different types of consciousness, levels yes (but that's another question), but what if Neanderthals were naturally herbivorous and perhaps a third equivalent hominid that was carnivorous, how would their ethics differ from an omnivore?

"Time for bed"

Maybe, but that's not the question you asked:

Now, that's off topic.

On topic, this is an ethical question that existed throughout history.

Does it matter?

Only if he can keep his finger off the trigger, so no.