> The point I was making is that these academic debates about ecosystems are at the expense of the lives of millions children. The debate isn't so academic if

> The point I was making is that these academic debates about ecosystems are at the expense of the lives of millions children. The debate isn't so academic if it turns out the ecosystem impact of the thing you did to try to save millions of children ends up harming a different set of millions of children. To think we understand nature well enough to guarantee that won't happen is naive. There should absolutely be a high burden on those proposing this sort of thing, and suggesting so doesn't, in any way, imply a lack of sympathy for those who are currently suffering. But when you start talking about large-scale, population-level effect projects like this, you have to look at the greater good and not individual situations.