> 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. That a

> 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. That assumes they aren't making sense and that it needs to be explained. That hasn't been demonstrated. > Even that is not true. A apex-predator-less ecosystem can function just as well, albeit differently. Look up bottom-up trophic cascade. The existence of other ways of controlling population doesn't mean that those other ways are the only way. Not all food chains are controlled by bottom-up trophic cascade. some are controlled by apex predators and removing apex predators changes the ecosystem, sometimes in ways that result in collapse. > Not necessarily. Bottom-up trophic cascade takes care of that. You're shifting your explanation. Earlier you said that humans could replace apex predators. When I pointed out the problems with that, now you say it can be controlled with bottom up trophic cascade. Is it possible you just don't understand this issue as well as you think? > However, hunting will be more available, reducing reliance on industrial food farming. Not if humans aren't able to replace the apex predators functionally. Not if the volume of food produced is different. Industrial food production is less subject to seasonal variations. Have you considered that? > 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. Thats basically nonsensical and doesn't respond to my point. Humans wouldn't replace the apex predator therefore the ecosystem would change. > In the real world, humans co-evolved with very specific eco-systems and have nothing to do with most of the rest of it. In the real world, the ecosystems are interdependent on other ecosystems and no barriers can be drawn except by choice. > That's a huge leap of faith. Not at all. > They would happily get rid of them if they had the means. Of course they would, animals have no concept of biodiversity. That doesn't impact on the well-established thesis that biodiversity is healthy and ecosystems with fewer species are more vulnerable to disease and catastrophe. > 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. Biodiversity of everything. The pangolin theory is interesting but its equally likely that if humans hadn't been destroying species at an astonishing rate over the last 50 years we'd likely also not have COVID-19.