3 ms·

Because very few species have been hunted to extinction. That’s directly contextual to the conversation. Both are a travesty fwiw, but habitat destruction is e

• msm_ 3y ago
  >Both are a travesty fwiw, but habitat destruction is easily 10x worse when it comes to endangering species. So you're saying that if we care about the animals, we should reduce our impact on the environment? For example, pick a diet that causes less greenhouse gas emissions? Ideally one that also results in significantly less harm to water, land and biodiversity? Makes sense.
  • SEJeff 3y ago
    Most of the habitat destruction is directly manmade, not indirectly through climate change. Way to put words in my mouth I never said, but no :) Desertification due to unsustainable farming practice, deforestation for industrial farming (for vegetarian meals!), logging, and habitat clearing for homes and cities is the biggest contributor. They’re literally cutting down or burning the Amazon in Brazil to keep livestock and to farm the land. They do it unsustainably and the soil is robbed of all nutrients. This results in most plants dying and desertification. Want to see the best way to reverse this? Watch the (most fabulous) movie “the biggest little farm” where they turned a plot of land suffering from full desertification from monoculture farming into a small paradise teeming with life and diversity. Also, to counter your point, it’s possible to add red seaweed to livestock feed which contains enough bromoform to counter around 80% of methane production. It does this by inhibiting the enzyme that creates the methane as a byproduct.