4 ms·
> But for the planetary biosphere, it's a win because the mammals are better suited to living there It's not a win in either case. It's just what happened. E
by empath75 7y ago
> But for the planetary biosphere, it's a win because the mammals are better suited to living there
It's not a win in either case. It's just what happened. Evolution and nature and the biosphere don't have goals.
- mrfusion 7y agoYou raise a good point too. if there are no wins or losses in nature maybe it comes down to promoting species we enjoy most?
- ordu 7y agoHow about maximizing diversity? Because it is more fun for people and because it increases fitness of the biosphere as an ultimate ecosystem? As for me it sounds better. Yes, local people could be annoyed by lions or venomous snakes, but for the most humans lions and snakes are just a curiosity that makes world more interesting.
- marcus_holmes 7y agobut I think this was the point of the article. Losing highly-adapted, very fragile species to a more robust invader is a loss of biodiversity. But that holds biodiversity as a higher virtue than survivability and adaptability. Is that justified? This is the thing: if species A out-performs species B in a given ecosystem niche, and species B becomes extinct as a result, that's how nature works. That's evolution. There's nothing "wrong" or "bad" about that. Survival of the fittest. If humans caused species A to be there, that's irrelevant. It doesn't make Species A's survival (or species B's extinction) "unnatural" or "wrong". We were just a transport mechanism, like any other "natural" transport mechanism. Surely evolution and survival of the fittest overrules biodiversity?
- marcus_holmes 7y agotrue, good point. I would rephrase it, but I think it's sufficiently clear as is, if we accept that there is no actual "winning" involved here as you point out.