4 ms·
You raise a good point too. if there are no wins or losses in nature maybe it comes down to promoting species we enjoy most?
by mrfusion 7y ago
You 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?