Clarification

We have already discussed how various ethical commandments, laws and mores are an example for the "and" imposing restrictions upon the "or" for the benefit of both.  Thus, the above post was largely an argument that the benefit of both is good.  It could be argued that the human race is destroying diversity, and antisocial behavior, or a descent into anarchy, as has occurred in such places as Somalia, would be good in the long run, as it would result in more starvation and death, the end of the human race, and ultimately the protection of diversity.   While this may have some surface appeal, antisocial behavior in general includes a disregard for all life, both human and nonhuman, the plundering of the environment and the promotion of famine.   What seems more sensible is that we include in the definition of ethical behavior behavior that both inures to the benefit of society and the benefit of the planet.  Commandments against murder and theft are not inconsistent with this definition if we have the confidence that human society is capable of thriving without destroying the planet.  Certainly, the exercise of measures to protect against overpopulation, such as the use of birth control, and the development of green technologies would seem to suggest human society has this potential.
We must also acknowledge that promotion of diversity among life forms has not been linear.  There were mass extinctions, from which both the "or" and the "and" recovered.  Thus, it is possible that human society can thrive at the temporary expense of the "and" and the "or".
 In the end, while we can say that the human represents the "and" and the "or"'s crowning achievement, and that it is beautiful, and destroying this beauty is bad (as we said in the last post), we cannot allow its crowning achievement to result in the destruction of the planet, and the death of diversity.