3 ms·
The reason the dingo is fundamentally different than the rabbit (or the invasive predators that prey on them) is it's had several thousand (4,000-12,000) years
by ravitation 9y ago
The reason the dingo is fundamentally different than the rabbit (or the invasive predators that prey on them) is it's had several thousand (4,000-12,000) years to reach a form of ecological equilibrium. Not to imply that nature is naturally balanced, but only that it is not threatening the survival of other "native" species. That's not true of the rabbit, which is why it's an invasive species and the dingo is not.
Environmentalism wasn't as popular when the dingo was introduced... So there isn't much we can do about its initial impact to the ecosystem... So, yes, date does matters very much... It's not about race or religion or political history... It's actually very much about biology...
- sandworm101 9y agoSo if we let the rabbits run wild until another equilibrium, as the one that occurred after the dingo introduction, then that new equilibrium is the one we are then to protect? I'd argue that there has never been any sort of natural equilibrium so long as humans, any humans, have been active in an environment. We must pick which human arrival draws the line between natural an not. I'd go with the original arrival.
- ravitation 9y agoYes, a new equilibrium would arise. And many species would likely go extinct. We can't protect the species that the dingo drove into extinction because they went extinct thousands of years ago... We can protect the ones that the rabbit is driving into extinction.... That's where we draw the line.... It's not arbitrary...