3 ms·
Another beaver comment... I know you didn't explicitly say it, so I will just to clarify in case you meant well. For all the city folk on here who read the beav
by hunter-gatherer 1y ago
Another beaver comment... I know you didn't explicitly say it, so I will just to clarify in case you meant well. For all the city folk on here who read the beaver dam stuff and infer that beavers are destructive to eco systems, rest assured this is not the case. Consequences for local eco systems? Yes. Positive ones. There is no shortage of information out there about this subject. Sorry to preach, but I happen to live in beaver country and have spent more time in the dwindling forests and wilderness than most people. When people start talking about beavers building dams in this context it sounds so ridiculous.
Another note: The largest beaver dam discovered is about .5 miles in length. Even if it was purely destructive to local eco systems it would hardly compare to human development.
- bccdee 1y agoI have beavers in my area too—I'm well aware that dammed lakes are their own rich ecosystems full of niches for other species to thrive in. The comparison was deliberate: There's no reason why humans shaping the environment has to be a bad thing. Obviously the way we're doing it now is bad—I'm not disputing that—but we could simply do it well instead. Of course, when species are destructive to their environments, that's natural too. Consider the mass extinction caused by cyanobacteria back when they first evolved. It's not "nature" we want, it's biodiversity and healthy ecosystems. Shrinking the human population to 500M might feel "natural" to some people, but it really has little to do with our actual environmental goals.