Which is more moral?

[Paladin95]

The population of the world has increased ever more quickly since the end of WWII. Since then, the scale of militaries and wars has been generally on the decline, and the typical standard of living has improved significantly. Obviously, population growth is not innately linked to more war and suffering. Thus, your burden is to show that environmental damage is more immoral than destruction of the individual (mental magic) and slow, painful death (battle magic).

[Desmarestia]

Environmental damage affects everyone on the planet, including noncombatants. The question is whether indiscriminately poisoning the entire world is more immoral than destroying individuals, either spiritually or physically. Environmental damage, of course, does both on a massive scale. Just more slowly.

 

I could take the reductio ad absurdum (one of them, anyway) of Shaper Erika's argument and state that the extinction of sentient life on Earth would be the best thing for the planet. I suspect that this is true. Humans are not the most prevalent species on the planet, and their elimination would greatly benefit those whose habitats are to be destroyed in the name of Progress.