>>38
Are you referring to
>>37 (the liberal) or talking to
>>37 in reference to
>>36 (the liberal)?
If you're focusing on the use of "human life," I really didn't know what to go with in that instance because I'm riding on the reality that life on this planet is oddly tenacious. It's survived massive climate upheavals in the past and there's no evidence that life, in general, is not surviving even despite the destructive tendencies attributed to humans. It's just not staying the same as the way we humans have known it. I didn't want to say "carbon life" because most of everything else is just speculative and outside of hypothetical existence all I can say for sure is that humans can push the environment to a state where they won't be around to care about what happens next.
I am not using this as an argument for disregard of environmental management or maintenance. I am not an ardent supporter of the more eccentric extremities that some people propose in protection of the Earth; but, I am also not some third-rate Captain Planet antagonist of the week who is either just malicious or is just slightly misguided; I am an individual human being and, as such, having physical and psychological requirements that can only be fulfilled by the existence of other human beings, I am compelled to care strongly about their livelihood despite not knowing each of their names or faces. I merely take issue with your wording. Environmental collapse is "life is over; Earth is another Mars, just one planet closer to the star" and there's no apparent means of fulfilling that at the moment. Making a big mess and leaving things in a state that is broken based on past models, yeah, that we can do. That's also happened before us, without us, and yet there's still something here now to consider that.
I still don't have a good phrase to replace "human life" after saying all.