What do you mean by small things? Is a butterfly a small thing? Is a billion butterflies also a "small thing"?
It's not a question of fallacy--it's a question of judgment. Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Many people assume that we are more powerful than we have proven to be.
There is a fallacy, though: that of confusing correlation for causation. What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention.
>Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain.
Yes. We have answer that pretty conclusively. Humans are capable of and have carried out global scale changes to the biosphere.
>What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention.
Mass extinction events have not been happening continuously for millions of years. Perhaps that is the cause of your confusion.
Just because something can happen without human intervention doesn't mean humans can't cause it. Trees can fall in the wind, but you would have to be a rather special person to argue that because trees can fall in the wind that it's impossible for a human to cut down a tree (humans being so much smaller than trees).
> It's not a question of fallacy--it's a question of judgment. Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Many people assume that we are more powerful than we have proven to be.
Cod stocks collapsed because of over fishing. They recovered when we stopped fishing.
Buffalo went near extinct when we killed most of them.
The passenger pigeon went extinct when we killed all of them.
Dodos went extinct because we killed all of them.
These are all clear and direct examples.
What you're doing is dishonest - "show me something unclear and with complex causes as an example of human destruction, and then when you do I'll quibble with the small areas of doubt provided in your example even though most of science agree the cause was human".
I'm not being dishonest. Sure, humans have caused or nearly caused a few species to become extinct in certain places.
That is a far cry from causing mass extinction on a global scale.
We have also protected and repopulated some nearly extinct species.
Equating the two--that's dishonest at worst, and a difference in judgment at best. Like I said, it's a question of judgment.
What is definitely dishonest is to claim that all sea life will die in ten years, leaving the shores covered with dead fish; or claim that the entire UK will starve to death; and then, when proven wrong by reality, say, "Well, they're having problems, aren't they? See? I wasn't really wrong."
And with such a track record, it seems ridiculous for anyone to believe him when he claims we are now causing mass extinctions on a global scale. How can you take him seriously?
It's not a question of fallacy--it's a question of judgment. Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Many people assume that we are more powerful than we have proven to be.
There is a fallacy, though: that of confusing correlation for causation. What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention.