>>275191Not the person you're replying to, but...
>no because the paper would be printer anywayThe animals would, arguably, be hunted anyway; be it by human or some other predator. Poor case to make.
>humans need to know how to assemble lampsNo they don't, this is as needless as 'needing' to wear fur for fashion. I'm sure they can work it out for themselves or find the information online.
A side point which would be interesting is how exactly you 'travel America'. It could quite happily be argued, presuming you travel using some kind of petrol, diesel or jet fuel, that you are having a net negative impact on the welfare of the planet. However, as you say some of the money goes towards nature conservation this may be an incorrect and is based on an assumption.
>plus trees are not animalsThis is a very poor argument to make and I would recommend 'Intelligence In Nature' by J.Narby in the hopes this silly assertion be revised as it came across callous. Again, to argue; A small contribution from yourself to deforestation could have a net negative effect of the welfare on the planet. Presuming part of your conservation doesn't involve tree planting.
>government recognises my occupationIt's a whole different topic that would find me explaining the intricacies of why the government should hold no bearing on what's to be considered the correct path on this planet. When, of course, we find that the government is very much a big part of the problem in the present day.
tl; dr Stop dogging on the little man and go spend your energies attending to the real issue (and yes that is, in part, the 'government' you seem so found of finding your validation from).
