"Yes there is, you save their lives, and you die, or you save your life, and they die."
This is why analogies are so obnoxious, because you can an invent an absurd analogy that has no relation to real life and give it all these properties that are convenient for your argument.
There is no intrinsic conflict because the fire was not caused by the fact that you yourself are alive. The fire was caused by something else, so it's very possible that the fire could be prevented and everyone lives. It might even be possible, in fact probable that a person rushing into a burning building 100 times without dying would also manage to save himself.
In the other example however there *is* an intrinsic conflict because the very fact that the person is living at all results in the death of microorganisms. It cannot be avoided. A world cannot be constructed in which there is coexistence.Basically you're saying I have to argue species suicide for human beings otherwise my worldview is not consistent, so it's either species suicide or dogs are automatons with no feelings. I reject that false and absurd dichotomy.
And yes I know you're going to keep repeating the point about the fact that you need to philosophize about life in order to really exist, else you're nothing more alive than an airplane that is programmed to beep on contact. The comparison is again silly because airplanes are not organic, they're not alive. They are programmed to respond in certain ways, they're not actually feeling anything because they're not alive. Furthermore airplanes do not act to do whatever it can to avoid pain, unlike animals. To animals the feeling is so unpleasant that they have fear and avoid the cause of pain. Planes can only do what is commanded of them and or what they're programmed to do. That might even involve heading straight into what caused them "pain".
"You seem to be saying that animals can be forgiven for just following their instincts - crocs eat animals, so, there you go."
I doubt very much that getting killed by a crocodile is a very painful process, since their jaws are so strong and they cannot chew. Crocodiles cannot be "designed" in such a way that they aren't carnivorous and don't have powerful jaws. They are what they are. They have the "right" to survive. Humans have nothing to do with it. Crocodiles exist to keep ecosystems in balance. Animals do not act out of balance with their environment, humans do.
"But we humans have been hunters for a very long time, and have also been molding and exploiting our environment for a very long time too, also in an attempt to survive."
What % of humans are hunters today, as in they hunt to live not for sport? Very few. Only the most primitive societies. We have conquered our environment to such a degree that hunting is absolutely unnecessary. We have developed to such an extent that we now know how to feed ourselves in such a way that avoids unnecessary suffering. Our teeth reflect the fact that we no longer need to rely on consumption of meat to live.
Need is defined in a straight forward way. What is imperative for survival. Crocodiles are carnivores, they cannot exist without eating meat. They cannot go to the supermarket to get their daily nutritional intake. They are subject to what is in their immediate environment. They have not conquered the environment. We have. Since we've conquered it, in order maintain balance with it we have to stop using the excuses of "instincts" (which are irrelevant for humans anyway) and be more deliberate about how we interact with it. Use those big brains you keep touting as the reason why we're of "superior intrinsic value" to all other (automaton) lifeforms.