Are there any arguments for protecting biodiversity other then muh feels? Posted on January 22, 2023 by Anonymous Are there any arguments for protecting biodiversity other then muh feels?
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
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 fucking CARP of all things?
I want more dogs and cats thoughever
Pigeons too but only if they come with seagulls and bin chickens. And regular chickens. Why not?
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.
Do you have any reason to post here other than to bait people?
it's a valid question considering most conservation marketing is feels-based and not logical justification for the continued survival of humanity.
The marketing is because people are motivated by feels.
The efforts and determinations aren't.
>and not logical justification for the continued survival of humanity.
Who said it was about humanity's survival?
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.
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.
FUCK other organisms, my planet now
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?
wrong, sex is the ultimate feel
Are there any arguments for the continued survival of humanity other than muh feels?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Are there any arguments against castrating you other then muh feels?
>t. cat owner
Is there any reason not to protect biodiversity beyond being an edgy contrarian?
It coast to much money and restricts our freedom
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 fuck off and never return, but we, the people, don't bankroll election campaigns.
>muh evil corporations
They provide jobs and services for people. They do much more to improve our lives then some dumb animals
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.
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
Stopping harmfull (to humans) pollution isn't the same thing as throwing away money to protect muh biodiversity
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.
>you will eat bugs and you will be happy
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
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).
Are there any arguments for protecting frogposters other then muh feels?
there is no need to be angered
the world would suck without wacky and weird animals to look at and befriend
99.999% of animals would eat humans if they were capable of doing so
yeah? and we eat them too
its only fair
Eating another animal is the ultimate sign of respect
You won't see or interract with most of them anyways
that's ok, I know they're there and it makes me happy 🙂
Are there any arguments for NOT protecting biodiversity other then muh feels?
are there any arguments for not killing frogposters on sight?
It irritates a certain sort of selfish cunt, and they're fun to irritate.
My strength in Myer‘s power has risen up to lvl 10 because of that pic.
Why? my feelings are the only thing that matters
More variety of genomes to exploit for medicine and agriculture.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.