4 ms·

If that was the case, the least that would be called for is to eliminate all other apex predators, have herbivore population grow and open up hunting in those a

If that was the case, the least that would be called for is to eliminate all other apex predators, have herbivore population grow and open up hunting in those areas. Removing apex predators and using human hunters instead has no side effects that are harmful to humans. Yet, this idea would not fly in the west. I know other countries where this would be preferred. The western governments put pressure on those poorer governments to "conserve" those species. The only reason this would be unacceptable to Christians is the Noah's arc story. Yet westerners would justify it with completely unsubstantiated "oh there are other imbalances that we can't forsee", at best. That's just a start. A human-centric approach would see little value in other ecosystems which evolved with humans completely outside of the picture and have nothing to do with humans. Humans are a part of very specific parts of very specific ecosystems. Most of others have nothing to do with humans and at best are a nuisance and potential disease risk, at worst are directly detrimental. It can be argued that some of them may be of medicinal value but it can also be argued that they could be breeding ground for future pandemics. Yet, even talking about this to westerners who are otherwise "believers of evolution" and "anti-Christianity" will hit deep sentiments and they'll be seen grasping at straws to justify their position... which could be anything... any position is OK as long as it is pro saving all the species that Noah intended to save.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Removing apex predators and using human hunters instead has no side effects that are harmful to humans. Thats not true, apex predators perform a valuable service by keeping the prey populations in check. Without them, humans would have to go hunt which is additional labor. Also its clear that humans wouldn't be able to hunt the same populations in the same amounts in the same way, which would have effects on the prey population, which would affect the rest of the ecosystem. > Yet, this idea would not fly in the west. Any ecologist could explain the above, it has nothing to do with the west. > Yet westerners would justify it with completely unsubstantiated "oh there are other imbalances that we can't forsee", at best. This is also a useful heuristic that is borne out of experience when we intervened in the ecosystem and discovered second order unintended consequences that no one could have foreseen. However in the case you mentioned, there are easily identifiable negative consequences that make it unnecessary to rely on the "least affect possible" heuristic. > That's just a start. A human-centric approach would see little value in other ecosystems which evolved with humans completely outside of the picture and have nothing to do with humans. There are none, at least not on Earth. > Humans are a part of very specific parts of very specific ecosystems. Most of others have nothing to do with humans and at best are a nuisance and potential disease risk, at worst are directly detrimental. This is incorrect. They provide a check on disease by encouraging competitor organisms through biodiversity. They provide a future stock of biological goods and biological inputs for industrial goods that will be used when discovered to be useful. They also interact with our ecosystem because all the ecosystems are connected and make one planet-Earth-sized ecosystem. > It can be argued that some of them may be of medicinal value but it can also be argued that they could be breeding ground for future pandemics. They are however the other organisms are busy evolving responses to these potential pandemic-causing organisms and that both keeps them in check and allows us to use those organisms to respond to the pandemics when they (inevitably) arise. Pandemics and plagues are more prevalent with less biodiversity because there is less competition once an organism evolves a means to take advantage of a vulnerability. > Yet, even talking about this to westerners who are otherwise "believers of evolution" and "anti-Christianity" will hit deep sentiments and they'll be seen grasping at straws to justify their position... which could be anything... any position is OK as long as it is pro saving all the species that Noah intended to save. You're pursuing this pet idea of yours to the exclusion of the facts and values of the people who address these ideas regularly.
- AntiImperialist 6y ago
  >You're pursuing this pet idea of yours to the exclusion of the facts and values of the people who address these ideas regularly. I'm pursuing this idea because it has wide-ranging applications. It explains why otherwise "rational" intelligent westerners make no sense a lot of the time. It is very easily explained if I just refer to the Bible. >apex predators perform a valuable service by keeping the prey populations in check. Even that is not true. A apex-predator-less ecosystem can function just as well, albeit differently. Look up bottom-up trophic cascade. >Without them, humans would have to go hunt which is additional labor. Not necessarily. Bottom-up trophic cascade takes care of that. However, hunting will be more available, reducing reliance on industrial food farming. >Also its clear that humans wouldn't be able to hunt the same populations in the same amounts in the same way, which would have effects on the prey population, which would affect the rest of the ecosystem. There is no need to copy a particular behavior. The species in the environment can epigenetically change to adapt to various predation patterns or lack thereof. >Any ecologist could explain the above, it has nothing to do with the west. A Chinese or a Japanese or an Indian or an African can in fact say the same thing, because they most likely studied the same things written by western academics. However, they are not so strictly married to those ideas, unless of course, they have been brought up as Christians. For example, the ideas behind animal cognition and intelligence have been heavily suppressed in the west because animals are not supposed to have a "soul". They are supposed to be mindless automatons. This is rarely the case with non-western scientists. >There are none, at least not on Earth. Sure, in a world where God created Adam and Eve and other animals to accompany them. In the real world, humans co-evolved with very specific eco-systems and have nothing to do with most of the rest of it. >They provide a check on disease by encouraging competitor organisms through biodiversity. They provide a future stock of biological goods and biological inputs for industrial goods that will be used when discovered to be useful. They also interact with our ecosystem because all the ecosystems are connected and make one planet-Earth-sized ecosystem. That's a huge leap of faith. Most other animals, which are not Christians, attack other predators which are their competitors all the time. They would happily get rid of them if they had the means. In fact, Europe got rid of a lot of predators before Christianity spread. The rest of the world did too, before the west spread Christianity to them, either as the religion as a part of the imperial era or as the education that came out from it spread to universities everywhere. >They are however the other organisms are busy evolving responses to these potential pandemic-causing organisms and that both keeps them in check and allows us to use those organisms to respond to the pandemics when they (inevitably) arise. Pandemics and plagues are more prevalent with less biodiversity because there is less competition once an organism evolves a means to take advantage of a vulnerability. Biodiversity of what? Bacteria and viruses? Or mammals? If we didn't have pangolins, some of which are endangered btw, we'd probably not have COVID-19.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> Removing apex predators and using human hunters instead has no side effects that are harmful to humans. Thats not true, apex predators perform a valuable service by keeping the prey populations in check. Without them, humans would have to go hunt which is additional labor. Also its clear that humans wouldn't be able to hunt the same populations in the same amounts in the same way, which would have effects on the prey population, which would affect the rest of the ecosystem. > Yet, this idea would not fly in the west. Any ecologist could explain the above, it has nothing to do with the west. > Yet westerners would justify it with completely unsubstantiated "oh there are other imbalances that we can't forsee", at best. This is also a useful heuristic that is borne out of experience when we intervened in the ecosystem and discovered second order unintended consequences that no one could have foreseen. However in the case you mentioned, there are easily identifiable negative consequences that make it unnecessary to rely on the "least affect possible" heuristic. > That's just a start. A human-centric approach would see little value in other ecosystems which evolved with humans completely outside of the picture and have nothing to do with humans. There are none, at least not on Earth. > Humans are a part of very specific parts of very specific ecosystems. Most of others have nothing to do with humans and at best are a nuisance and potential disease risk, at worst are directly detrimental. This is incorrect. They provide a check on disease by encouraging competitor organisms through biodiversity. They provide a future stock of biological goods and biological inputs for industrial goods that will be used when discovered to be useful. They also interact with our ecosystem because all the ecosystems are connected and make one planet-Earth-sized ecosystem. > It can be argued that some of them may be of medicinal value but it can also be argued that they could be breeding ground for future pandemics. They are however the other organisms are busy evolving responses to these potential pandemic-causing organisms and that both keeps them in check and allows us to use those organisms to respond to the pandemics when they (inevitably) arise. Pandemics and plagues are more prevalent with less biodiversity because there is less competition once an organism evolves a means to take advantage of a vulnerability. > Yet, even talking about this to westerners who are otherwise "believers of evolution" and "anti-Christianity" will hit deep sentiments and they'll be seen grasping at straws to justify their position... which could be anything... any position is OK as long as it is pro saving all the species that Noah intended to save. You're pursuing this pet idea of yours to the exclusion of the facts and values of the people who address these ideas regularly.

AntiImperialist 6y ago
>You're pursuing this pet idea of yours to the exclusion of the facts and values of the people who address these ideas regularly. I'm pursuing this idea because it has wide-ranging applications. It explains why otherwise "rational" intelligent westerners make no sense a lot of the time. It is very easily explained if I just refer to the Bible. >apex predators perform a valuable service by keeping the prey populations in check. Even that is not true. A apex-predator-less ecosystem can function just as well, albeit differently. Look up bottom-up trophic cascade. >Without them, humans would have to go hunt which is additional labor. Not necessarily. Bottom-up trophic cascade takes care of that. However, hunting will be more available, reducing reliance on industrial food farming. >Also its clear that humans wouldn't be able to hunt the same populations in the same amounts in the same way, which would have effects on the prey population, which would affect the rest of the ecosystem. There is no need to copy a particular behavior. The species in the environment can epigenetically change to adapt to various predation patterns or lack thereof. >Any ecologist could explain the above, it has nothing to do with the west. A Chinese or a Japanese or an Indian or an African can in fact say the same thing, because they most likely studied the same things written by western academics. However, they are not so strictly married to those ideas, unless of course, they have been brought up as Christians. For example, the ideas behind animal cognition and intelligence have been heavily suppressed in the west because animals are not supposed to have a "soul". They are supposed to be mindless automatons. This is rarely the case with non-western scientists. >There are none, at least not on Earth. Sure, in a world where God created Adam and Eve and other animals to accompany them. In the real world, humans co-evolved with very specific eco-systems and have nothing to do with most of the rest of it. >They provide a check on disease by encouraging competitor organisms through biodiversity. They provide a future stock of biological goods and biological inputs for industrial goods that will be used when discovered to be useful. They also interact with our ecosystem because all the ecosystems are connected and make one planet-Earth-sized ecosystem. That's a huge leap of faith. Most other animals, which are not Christians, attack other predators which are their competitors all the time. They would happily get rid of them if they had the means. In fact, Europe got rid of a lot of predators before Christianity spread. The rest of the world did too, before the west spread Christianity to them, either as the religion as a part of the imperial era or as the education that came out from it spread to universities everywhere. >They are however the other organisms are busy evolving responses to these potential pandemic-causing organisms and that both keeps them in check and allows us to use those organisms to respond to the pandemics when they (inevitably) arise. Pandemics and plagues are more prevalent with less biodiversity because there is less competition once an organism evolves a means to take advantage of a vulnerability. Biodiversity of what? Bacteria and viruses? Or mammals? If we didn't have pangolins, some of which are endangered btw, we'd probably not have COVID-19.