> I know that if one really believes in evolution, there is absolutely no reason to "conserve a species". It makes absolutely no sense. Species come and go. Whatever species remain will evolve to acquire characteristics suitable for whatever changes happen... or perish. So why does everyone believe in conservation and in evolution? Because they don't. But what if they believed in Noah's arc? It would be terrible if one of the species that Noah himself picked to be on a boat were to go extinct because humans did something, wouldn't it? That is exactly the reaction you see from all these westerners who allegedly "believe" in evolution.
The reason to conserve a species is because a biodiverse ecology is healthier. There is more competition so any organism (such as a disease-causing bacteria) is less able to cause a pandemic. Monocultures are susceptible to all sorts of problems that diverse ecologies are not.
How this interplays with evolution is that humans are in the position of unintentionally changing the environment drastically so that many species are now 'unfit.' This is because evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. It doesn't tell you anything is good or bad about 'fitness.' Fitness always refers to an environment. Given another environment, something else would be more fit to survive.
Conservation relies on an understanding of human power over the environment and a desire to maintain an environment that doesn't succumb to the same problems we see with monocultures.
>The reason to conserve a species is because a biodiverse ecology is healthier.
Healthier for who or what or to what end? Whatever changes (because of humans or otherwise), some individuals of a species may evolve to fit better to that... or they'll perish and something else will happen there. Worst case, it will go back to how things were 4 billion years ago.
>There is more competition so any organism (such as a disease-causing bacteria) is less able to cause a pandemic.
And humans are special why? Disease-causing is very human-centered... because of course we are special because God created us in his image. You may deny that because you "believe in evolution"... but I'm arguing is your beliefs make more sense if I go with the assumption that you belive in the Christian dogma and do not believe in evolution AT ALL. You may use your understanding of evolution to justify your Christian beliefs while simultaneously denying that you believe in Christianity... but from the outside, I see right through you.
If you believed that we are not special and that bacteria is running the world as much as we think we are, there is no need to favor humans over disease-causing bacteria.
>How this interplays with evolution is that humans are in the position of unintentionally changing the environment drastically so that many species are now 'unfit.'
>Conservation relies on an understanding of human power over the environment and a desire to maintain an environment that doesn't succumb to the same problems we see with monocultures.
If you believed in evolution, you'd see that humans are just as much part of nauture as anything else. It's your Christian dogma that leads you to believe that the world was created with a certain intent and humans are ruining it (by going against God's will, like Adam did with the fruit).
Again, in absence of Christian dogma, and with knowledge of evolution, you would not see the world as you do now.
You're actually reading something into this that isn't there. I want a world that's good for humans because I'm human and my genes make me want a world that is good for me and my offspring.
> there is no need to favor humans over disease-causing bacteria.
its not a need, its a value.
> Again, in absence of Christian dogma, and with knowledge of evolution, you would not see the world as you do now.
I'd still have a genetic drive for self preservation and a gene based desire to live in an environment that was better for me.
If that was the case, the least that would be called for is to eliminate all other apex predators, have herbivore population grow and open up hunting in those areas. Removing apex predators and using human hunters instead has no side effects that are harmful to humans.
Yet, this idea would not fly in the west. I know other countries where this would be preferred. The western governments put pressure on those poorer governments to "conserve" those species. The only reason this would be unacceptable to Christians is the Noah's arc story. Yet westerners would justify it with completely unsubstantiated "oh there are other imbalances that we can't forsee", at best.
That's just a start. A human-centric approach would see little value in other ecosystems which evolved with humans completely outside of the picture and have nothing to do with humans. Humans are a part of very specific parts of very specific ecosystems. Most of others have nothing to do with humans and at best are a nuisance and potential disease risk, at worst are directly detrimental. It can be argued that some of them may be of medicinal value but it can also be argued that they could be breeding ground for future pandemics.
Yet, even talking about this to westerners who are otherwise "believers of evolution" and "anti-Christianity" will hit deep sentiments and they'll be seen grasping at straws to justify their position... which could be anything... any position is OK as long as it is pro saving all the species that Noah intended to save.
> Removing apex predators and using human hunters instead has no side effects that are harmful to humans.
Thats not true, apex predators perform a valuable service by keeping the prey populations in check. Without them, humans would have to go hunt which is additional labor. Also its clear that humans wouldn't be able to hunt the same populations in the same amounts in the same way, which would have effects on the prey population, which would affect the rest of the ecosystem.
> Yet, this idea would not fly in the west.
Any ecologist could explain the above, it has nothing to do with the west.
> Yet westerners would justify it with completely unsubstantiated "oh there are other imbalances that we can't forsee", at best.
This is also a useful heuristic that is borne out of experience when we intervened in the ecosystem and discovered second order unintended consequences that no one could have foreseen. However in the case you mentioned, there are easily identifiable negative consequences that make it unnecessary to rely on the "least affect possible" heuristic.
> That's just a start. A human-centric approach would see little value in other ecosystems which evolved with humans completely outside of the picture and have nothing to do with humans.
There are none, at least not on Earth.
> Humans are a part of very specific parts of very specific ecosystems. Most of others have nothing to do with humans and at best are a nuisance and potential disease risk, at worst are directly detrimental.
This is incorrect. They provide a check on disease by encouraging competitor organisms through biodiversity. They provide a future stock of biological goods and biological inputs for industrial goods that will be used when discovered to be useful. They also interact with our ecosystem because all the ecosystems are connected and make one planet-Earth-sized ecosystem.
> It can be argued that some of them may be of medicinal value but it can also be argued that they could be breeding ground for future pandemics.
They are however the other organisms are busy evolving responses to these potential pandemic-causing organisms and that both keeps them in check and allows us to use those organisms to respond to the pandemics when they (inevitably) arise. Pandemics and plagues are more prevalent with less biodiversity because there is less competition once an organism evolves a means to take advantage of a vulnerability.
> Yet, even talking about this to westerners who are otherwise "believers of evolution" and "anti-Christianity" will hit deep sentiments and they'll be seen grasping at straws to justify their position... which could be anything... any position is OK as long as it is pro saving all the species that Noah intended to save.
You're pursuing this pet idea of yours to the exclusion of the facts and values of the people who address these ideas regularly.
>You're pursuing this pet idea of yours to the exclusion of the facts and values of the people who address these ideas regularly.
I'm pursuing this idea because it has wide-ranging applications. It explains why otherwise "rational" intelligent westerners make no sense a lot of the time. It is very easily explained if I just refer to the Bible.
>apex predators perform a valuable service by keeping the prey populations in check.
Even that is not true. A apex-predator-less ecosystem can function just as well, albeit differently. Look up bottom-up trophic cascade.
>Without them, humans would have to go hunt which is additional labor.
Not necessarily. Bottom-up trophic cascade takes care of that. However, hunting will be more available, reducing reliance on industrial food farming.
>Also its clear that humans wouldn't be able to hunt the same populations in the same amounts in the same way, which would have effects on the prey population, which would affect the rest of the ecosystem.
There is no need to copy a particular behavior. The species in the environment can epigenetically change to adapt to various predation patterns or lack thereof.
>Any ecologist could explain the above, it has nothing to do with the west.
A Chinese or a Japanese or an Indian or an African can in fact say the same thing, because they most likely studied the same things written by western academics. However, they are not so strictly married to those ideas, unless of course, they have been brought up as Christians.
For example, the ideas behind animal cognition and intelligence have been heavily suppressed in the west because animals are not supposed to have a "soul". They are supposed to be mindless automatons. This is rarely the case with non-western scientists.
>There are none, at least not on Earth.
Sure, in a world where God created Adam and Eve and other animals to accompany them. In the real world, humans co-evolved with very specific eco-systems and have nothing to do with most of the rest of it.
>They provide a check on disease by encouraging competitor organisms through biodiversity. They provide a future stock of biological goods and biological inputs for industrial goods that will be used when discovered to be useful. They also interact with our ecosystem because all the ecosystems are connected and make one planet-Earth-sized ecosystem.
That's a huge leap of faith. Most other animals, which are not Christians, attack other predators which are their competitors all the time. They would happily get rid of them if they had the means. In fact, Europe got rid of a lot of predators before Christianity spread. The rest of the world did too, before the west spread Christianity to them, either as the religion as a part of the imperial era or as the education that came out from it spread to universities everywhere.
>They are however the other organisms are busy evolving responses to these potential pandemic-causing organisms and that both keeps them in check and allows us to use those organisms to respond to the pandemics when they (inevitably) arise. Pandemics and plagues are more prevalent with less biodiversity because there is less competition once an organism evolves a means to take advantage of a vulnerability.
Biodiversity of what? Bacteria and viruses? Or mammals? If we didn't have pangolins, some of which are endangered btw, we'd probably not have COVID-19.
> It explains why otherwise "rational" intelligent westerners make no sense a lot of the time. It is very easily explained if I just refer to the Bible.
That assumes they aren't making sense and that it needs to be explained. That hasn't been demonstrated.
> Even that is not true. A apex-predator-less ecosystem can function just as well, albeit differently. Look up bottom-up trophic cascade.
The existence of other ways of controlling population doesn't mean that those other ways are the only way. Not all food chains are controlled by bottom-up trophic cascade. some are controlled by apex predators and removing apex predators changes the ecosystem, sometimes in ways that result in collapse.
> Not necessarily. Bottom-up trophic cascade takes care of that.
You're shifting your explanation. Earlier you said that humans could replace apex predators. When I pointed out the problems with that, now you say it can be controlled with bottom up trophic cascade. Is it possible you just don't understand this issue as well as you think?
> However, hunting will be more available, reducing reliance on industrial food farming.
Not if humans aren't able to replace the apex predators functionally. Not if the volume of food produced is different. Industrial food production is less subject to seasonal variations. Have you considered that?
> There is no need to copy a particular behavior. The species in the environment can epigenetically change to adapt to various predation patterns or lack thereof.
Thats basically nonsensical and doesn't respond to my point. Humans wouldn't replace the apex predator therefore the ecosystem would change.
> In the real world, humans co-evolved with very specific eco-systems and have nothing to do with most of the rest of it.
In the real world, the ecosystems are interdependent on other ecosystems and no barriers can be drawn except by choice.
> That's a huge leap of faith.
Not at all.
> They would happily get rid of them if they had the means.
Of course they would, animals have no concept of biodiversity. That doesn't impact on the well-established thesis that biodiversity is healthy and ecosystems with fewer species are more vulnerable to disease and catastrophe.
> Biodiversity of what? Bacteria and viruses? Or mammals? If we didn't have pangolins, some of which are endangered btw, we'd probably not have COVID-19.
Biodiversity of everything. The pangolin theory is interesting but its equally likely that if humans hadn't been destroying species at an astonishing rate over the last 50 years we'd likely also not have COVID-19.
Oh, it has been demonstrated to me over and over again. Unfortunately, you may be too much in it to see it. I am in the position to observe from the outside.
>The existence of other ways of controlling population doesn't mean that those other ways are the only way.
Read this part of your comment again, but slowly.
>Not all food chains are controlled by bottom-up trophic cascade.
And where did I imply that it is?
>some are controlled by apex predators and removing apex predators changes the ecosystem, sometimes in ways that result in collapse.
Not really. The very same ecosystem can adapt to changes in predator population or extermination of predator population altogether.
>You're shifting your explanation. Earlier you said that humans could replace apex predators. When I pointed out the problems with that, now you say it can be controlled with bottom up trophic cascade. Is it possible you just don't understand this issue as well as you think?
Or maybe I understand it thoroughly, much more than your limited religious beliefs allow for. The ecosystem can be regulated with or without apex predators. If we remove apex predators, it will still be regulated automatically. We can choose to hunt if we so desire, and it will work differently but it will still work and work well.
>In the real world, the ecosystems are interdependent on other ecosystems and no barriers can be drawn except by choice.
Ever heard of terrariums? Sure, ecosystems may be related because they're open systems. But they don't have to be.
>That doesn't impact on the well-established thesis
What is interesting is that all these "well established" theses only go so far as to comply with Christianity, never further.
>if humans hadn't been destroying species at an astonishing rate over the last 50 years we'd likely also not have COVID-19
I know, right? The children of Adam and Eve continue to disrupt the harmony of Gods creation, so many thousand years later. When will we learn?
Except coronaviruses have been infecting mammals almost as long as mammals have been around.
The reason to conserve a species is because a biodiverse ecology is healthier. There is more competition so any organism (such as a disease-causing bacteria) is less able to cause a pandemic. Monocultures are susceptible to all sorts of problems that diverse ecologies are not.
How this interplays with evolution is that humans are in the position of unintentionally changing the environment drastically so that many species are now 'unfit.' This is because evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. It doesn't tell you anything is good or bad about 'fitness.' Fitness always refers to an environment. Given another environment, something else would be more fit to survive.
Conservation relies on an understanding of human power over the environment and a desire to maintain an environment that doesn't succumb to the same problems we see with monocultures.