• RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 个月前

    No, sorry. We’ve unintentionally thrown so much of the world off balance by importing creatures that were never in certain places, that we must bear responsibility to bring things back to the balance they were at before we got there, particularly now that we know better.

    If that’s not possible, we’ll do our best to get there. Where are the dodos, buddy? Keep your stupid cats indoors, and stop bothering the local ecosystem more than we already have.

    • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 个月前

      we must bear responsibility to bring things back to the balance they were at before we got there

      The idea that nature was in some sort of balance before humans came along is a common misconception. Most ecosystems are dynamic, and change over time. What we are doing is accelerating that change to a dangerous level.

      This might seem like an academic distinction, but many conservationists have caused more harm than good by trying to ‘freeze’ ecosystems at a state that existed at some fixed point in the past. I believe it was George Monbiot who pointed out that the margins of many British roads had higher plant and insect diversity than many ‘protected’ areas.

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 个月前

        Or, see the wildfires in North America, caused largely by prevention of natural wildfires, resulting in a century of surplus of dead organic matter and primed with climate change-induced drought.

      • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 个月前

        Friend, cool it with the pedagogy. If one understands the idea of ecosystems at multiple scales, it follows implicitly that one understands the systems are inherently dynamic.

        The point still stands: we’ve got to understand the environs we’ve rapidly destabilized and do something to limit our negative influence. Ergo: keeping stupid cats indoors helps the stressed systems by reducing the load caused by a bored apex predator.

        • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 个月前

          Oops I forgot my point in saying all that, which was that if cats have become naturalised to your local ecosystem, then removing them could make things worse. (And by the way, cats are not apex predators.)

          • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 个月前

            By the way, actually, an apex is also known as the summit or peak of a curve, which domestic cats can generally be considered as they are rarely (though not never) predated upon. Wasn’t clear that you understood that, but now you do!

            • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 个月前

              Cats are not apex predators. They have predators in both their natural range and some of their introduced ranges. Cats bury their poop (probably) so they don’t broadcast their presence to any nearby predators.