[throwawaymath]

What's the point being driven at here? Is it minimizing the deaths of Australian wildlife, or is it making a quip about the sheer scale of cat hunting activity?

If it's the former, that seems like a bad comparison. The Australian wildfires are destroying ecosystems on a scale cats don't really do. And a much greater variety of wildlife is dying than what cats will typically kill.

Finally, wildfires don't support life. They're naturally occurring things, but they are not an activity occurring in the support of other life. Cats kill to hone hunting skills (or simply to hunt, if they're actually hungry). With that observation we can impose a reasonable normative, which is that we don't need to accept wildfires the same way we accept predator activity.

Put simply: I don't see that these two things belong to the same category of destruction.

[ticmasta]

I took it simply as a comment on how the same scale of impact has very different emotional responses if the cause is a big, notable event vs. a long-running regular one.

Isn't this the entire problem with climate change in general? It's really hard to get people concerned with very small temperature changes over long periods of time because we use our human perspective; it's hard for us to understand a geological time scale.

These types of observations help IMO.

>> The Australian wildfires are destroying ecosystems on a scale cats don't really do. And a much greater variety of wildlife is dying than what cats will typically kill.

Well, domestic cats are considered an invasive species in much of the world, and in Canada are the #1 killer of birds. Studies show they are the 3rd biggest offender towards putting species at risk. The story is worse on islands, of which we have many.

>> Finally, wildfires don't support life. They're naturally occurring things, but they are not an activity occurring in the support of other life.

This is absolutely wrong. Lots of forests in Western Canada depend greatly on regular, large-scale fires to support specific species of flora and fauna. Our excellent job of preventing these fires is likely to blame for many huge problems like mountain pine beetle and predator/prey imbalances.

[Buttons840]

I think the point is that simply stating one billion animals died isn't, by itself, very interesting. It also draws attention to an interesting fact, a fact which some believe deserves more recognition, that cats kill many animals.

As you say, the real issue is massive ecosystem destruction and rare and/or endangered species being killed. But that doesn't spread on social media quite as well as the feeling driven "one billion animals died!"

[jgust]

> Finally, wildfires don't support life

Not entirely true. Forest fires and prairie fires are a part of some plant lifecycles.

https://www.britannica.com/list/5-amazing-adaptations-of-pyr...

[CaptArmchair]

It's a bad comparison, but for a different set of reasons.

Wildfires aren't part of the fauna. This is true. But even without humans, there are wildfires. When wildfires happen, they create a new playing field for species to inhabit. Moreover, life has adapted over the course of millions of years to a low number of wildfires i.e. the spread of a species over a large territory whereas wildfires may be incidental and localized. The adaptability of a species to wildfires - amongst other things - is what defines it's resilience.

The difference here is that the size and scope of these fires is far beyond the resilience of entire regional ecosystems. When this is over, what is lost won't return. It will be replaced by different species - plants and animals - that might not be as diverse or rich.

We can safely assert that wild cats are inherently part of the ecosystem. However, if a billion animals being killed a year by cats, well, that's not due to the mere presence of cats as a species. But because of the overwhelming number of cats in the ecosystem. And that number is anything but normal.

Cats are domesticated animals. The main reason why there are so many out there is simply because society tends to keep and protect cats. Cats and humans live in a symbiotic relationship. And that's why cats thrive as a species. Much to the detriment of other species.

Put more poignantly, nobody would argue against the need for pet owners to keep their dogs to a leash and their pet snakes and other predators locked in cages. But cats are the major exception. There are no laws that restrict home owners to let cats go out of the door and roam the neighborhood killing each any small bird, mammal or reptile around. Whereas other wild species who espouse pretty much the same behavior - rats, foxes, mice - are seen as pests.

And so, we can safely assert that neither mega wildfires nor the strain cats impose by their numbers are natural occurrences. In both cases, they are manifestations causes by irrational human behaviours.

[MadWombat]

> Whereas other wild species who espouse pretty much the same behavior - rats, foxes, mice - are seen as pests.

I have not heard of anyone having a problem with rats and mice hunting other animals. They are mainly considered pests because they eat human food stores. And the only context I have heard of foxes considered pests is when they hunt livestock, chickens, geese etc. If a domestic cat starts hunting chickens, I am pretty sure it will have consequences as well.

[ticmasta]

>> I have not heard of anyone having a problem with rats and mice hunting other animals

In Canada rats are a bigger threat to bird species than cats, topped only by humans. Or visit an island environment Galapagos where they've been introduced.

[bacon_waffle]

Rats and mice are classic examples of "invasive species" and can have huge impact on ecosystems. Just to pick two handy examples; rats in New Zealand[1] and regular house mice putting bird species at risk of extinction[2].

[1] https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-threats/animal-pest...

[2] https://www.goughisland.com/

[teruakohatu]

They don't "hunt" animals, they eat the eggs, removing the ability for the birds to reproduce. They devestate native bird populations that did not develop with pressure from rodants and lack defenses.

[lm28469]

> They are mainly considered pests because they eat human food stores

Don't forget the plague and other diseases. "peste" literally means "plague" in French.