|
|
|
|
|
by viraptor
2885 days ago
|
|
This doesn't necessarily apply to all species on the list, but generally changing the existing balance in the environment is a bad idea. For the example of the beetle: > “Without burying beetles, we’d be knee-deep in dead and decaying carcasses,” Which is probably not strictly true, because ants and other insects would likely take over a lot of that. But then you're artificially expanding one population over the other. This affects the food chain for larger animals. If you hit the wrong combination of natural incentives, one day your huge farms (which due to other incentives are close to monoculture) get eaten by insects pushed out of their previous environment. And they won't care about the human endeavour or how special we feel about ourselves. We already proved how small changes impact everything. Bringing a few rabbits to Australia resulted in a huge population causing other species dying, vegetation for grazing livestock reduced, ground erosion, etc. Same could happen if a predator regulating some species dies. But the chain could start with some beetle. |
|