Are there any arguments for protecting biodiversity other then muh feels?

Are there any arguments for protecting biodiversity other then muh feels?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Like everything else in reality, it's going to happen no matter what you think of it. You don't matter in the slightest, and what you think matters even less.

    no argument is necessary or useful

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Less biodiversity = more copypasta pigeons, carp, rats, cats, dogs, wasps, mosquitoes, and jellyfish to replace everything

    Basically the most annoying animals you hate will try to fill new niches and find more ways to piss you off, and sometimes you'll just have more annoying ass pests in general instead of niche replacement.

    Would you really want the only fish you could order at a restaurant to be fricking CARP of all things?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I want more dogs and cats thoughever

      Pigeons too but only if they come with seagulls and bin chickens. And regular chickens. Why not?

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The destruction of biodiversity can not be reversed. Thats the only argument you really need. People should consider very long and carefully before permanently deleting stuff from existence forever.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Do you have any reason to post here other than to bait people?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      it's a valid question considering most conservation marketing is feels-based and not logical justification for the continued survival of humanity.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The marketing is because people are motivated by feels.
        The efforts and determinations aren't.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >and not logical justification for the continued survival of humanity.
        Who said it was about humanity's survival?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Are there any arguments for the continued survival of humanity other than muh feels?

          Humanity's survival is the ultimate feel. It's the feel that feels were created for. If an animal doesn't prioritize its own kin and species, it is defective.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            A clever lie told by competing genes. "We're reproductively compatible, so preserve me so I, I mean we, can spread"

            Genetic superiority is eliminating competing lines. If an animal does not kill its more distant kin so only its direct descendants will rule the earth, it is defective and such an animal will send it back into the earth eventually.

            One way you could do this is by changing the environment so you can survive but your competitors can not. ie: a less intelligent group of humans depends on nature to have agriculture, but you have extensive industry and can create spheres of artificial nature to have enough agriculture to feed your people and none of theirs. So to secure genetic superiority, you destroy nature so only you and those that earn your favor can survive.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              cyanobacteria 2.0

              FRICK other organisms, my planet now

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            so your argument is muh feels.
            And you admit that you have no arguments other than muh feels.
            But somehow you decide to disregard other arguments based on muh feels.

            Why should anyone care about your opinion then? Why should I care about your feels more than about muh feels?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            wrong, sex is the ultimate feel

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Are there any arguments for the continued survival of humanity other than muh feels?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Have you ever considered that people don't give a shit about a cause unless you can appeal to them emotionally? There's a reason the term "charismatic megafauna" exists.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Stabilizing the ecology that our species developed in and best thrives in.
    Increasing the chance that a given ecology can weather a major environmental change.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Then saving species just because they are rare but have no special ecological niche is useless. Just put different dpecies in its place with same ecological function. A lot if people want to save certain species (e.g some frog or some weevil that no one knows about) just because they are rare or something. Not because they have a specialist ecological function.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Much of the time we don't understand a species well enough to know how the ecosystem will respond to its extinction. Conversely, even a species with a major place in its ecosystem may be replaceable. For example, the north american chestnut tree composed most of the forests of north america, but is virtually extinct now. Its niche was successfully replaced by oak (acorn) trees.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Good analogy ive heard is it's like playing Jenga.
        Sure you can take some blocks out and things basically keep going.
        But we don't know which blocks are the load-bearing ones, and each time we remove a block we increase the chance that the next block causes a collapse.
        Better to have redundancies.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Are there any arguments against castrating you other then muh feels?

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >t. cat owner

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Is there any reason not to protect biodiversity beyond being an edgy contrarian?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It coast to much money and restricts our freedom

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It doesn't cost anyone any money. it costs megacorporations that do shit like this profit, but none of the money they make ends up in our hands. No, their operations are designed to remove money from other people. They only give a little money to a handful of people and pocket the vast majority as they remove money form many, many more.

        We, the people, would make more money for ourselves off tourism by telling polluters (often foreign companies, ie: the dutch) to frick off and never return, but we, the people, don't bankroll election campaigns.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >muh evil corporations
          They provide jobs and services for people. They do much more to improve our lives then some dumb animals

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They create boom-bust economies and long term poverty, and then move all their cash out of state and into tax havens while the locals are left footing the bill for getting shit like clean drinking water back and trying to avoid ecological collapse making agriculture impossible through desertification.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        areas associated with polluting and destructive industries have historically ended up poor as shit and lacking any freedom unless you count the freedom that comes from not being able to afford police

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Stopping harmfull (to humans) pollution isn't the same thing as throwing away money to protect muh biodiversity

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It is the same because everything that harms biodiversity is coincidentally harming you
            >but the roundup is generally recognized as safe and doesn't turn your unborn children trans at all
            Can't forget meat overproduction as a great example of indirect harm. You need less than 5oz of meat a day to live, average americans eat nearly 2lbs a day, requiring insane amounts of habitat loss for both pasture and growing feed as there will never be enough pasture for that much livestock. Eating that much meat is destroying biodiversity, and your body, by lowering your lifespan, your brain function, and your immune function.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >you will eat bugs and you will be happy

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No. You will eat a normal amount of eggs, chicken breasts, and for special occasions, beef, domestic caribou, or mutton. And you will be happy.

                You do not need to eat bugs, those just slot in while the elites monopolize all the tasty meat

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why should I not murder other people? I don't like them and they are competing with me for resources and women (that I want to rape).

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Are there any arguments for protecting frogposters other then muh feels?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      there is no need to be angered

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    the world would suck without wacky and weird animals to look at and befriend

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      99.999% of animals would eat humans if they were capable of doing so

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        yeah? and we eat them too
        its only fair

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Eating another animal is the ultimate sign of respect

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        muh dik

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      based

      99.999% of animals would eat humans if they were capable of doing so

      EXTRA based

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You won't see or interract with most of them anyways

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        that's ok, I know they're there and it makes me happy 🙂

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Blessed

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Are there any arguments for NOT protecting biodiversity other then muh feels?

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    are there any arguments for not killing frogposters on sight?

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It irritates a certain sort of selfish c**t, and they're fun to irritate.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Good point

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      My strength in Myer‘s power has risen up to lvl 10 because of that pic.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why? my feelings are the only thing that matters

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    More variety of genomes to exploit for medicine and agriculture.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This.
      Axolotls are just some random newt from Mexico that would have died out a long time ago had we not payed them any mind. Imagine how much further behind we would be on cloning and regeneration research had they not existed.
      The structure of mantis shrimp punchers is so unique that we're studying it to make our materials stronger.
      All your silk comes from one species of moth we took a liking to, and black widows and golden weavers make the strongest and most exploitable spider silk.
      Penicillin came from some random mold some guy found on bread.

      The best non-feels argument for preserving biodiversity is protecting potential future discoveries that could improve our lives immeasurably. Just imagine how many random species that have gone extinct could've had something useful to learn about them.
      What if that random fish in Siberia that got killed off by chemical waste dumping had a unique gut microbiome we could have used to make our bodies more receptive to organ transplants without compromising overall immunity?
      Now that it's gone, we can never know.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        So the species that are cryptic enough that they are indistinguishable from other species apart from maybe a few extra hairs on the t16 segment of its thorax are exempt from this argument.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          If you are killing off all the Jeff's Black Circle Beetle #16 with industrial pollution, how are you not also killing off all the Jeff's Black Circle Beetle #17?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            In my country a lot of biodiversity has to be 'saved' from invasive species or inbreeding between invasive and native species (genetic purity). A lot of the arguments to save the native species is because of feels, because we want to revert nature back to where it was before human interference. There is no ecological argument.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              without protection the local ecological collapse would affect you too, the lack of balance would create run-away feedback loops that would interact (probably negativly) with your civilisation. your local sources of meat and vegetables need viable soils and food. the prices of it all would sky rocket if those things became unavailable. removing animals like birds would mean that bug populations would explode, which would have an effect on the rest of your local flora and fauna. removing snakes would let rodents run amok, which would eat more bird eggs getting eaten, which would lead to bug explosion, which would allow say mosquito populations to explode and eventually start eating your food animals alive and become more then just a slight annoyance, while the run-away rat population would eat all your grains, infest your homes and become a health issue.(for example).

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I think you and I are on completely different pages and different level of understanding of ecological functioning. There are plenty of ecology papers discussing and debating the ‘feels in conservation’ argument. Your comment is irrelevant to the points in the post you responded to by the way. Your understanding of the situation is childishly elementary.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Functioning ecosystems are self-sustaining emergency food reserves and remain as fertile land while destroyed ones do not and tend to turn into deserts. If anything there's a reason to steamroll desert ecosystems by turning them back into forests and grasslands.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *