[thaumasiotes]

> the normal state of nature is to not create a perfect balance out of the gate

That is true. Additionally, a balance will never be achieved no matter how long you wait, either. That's the state of nature; some things are always replacing other things.

[RGamma]

That's dangerously simplistic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_stability and related topics for a start.

[thaumasiotes]

Ecological stability refers to a concept that is never realized. You can pretend it exists by ignoring the variation that you feel is unimportant. Over time, that variation will make its way into the areas that you thought were stable.

[RGamma]

The reason I wrote my remark is the relatively recent uptick in "in nature everything always changed regardless of whether we exist, therefore we're absolved from everything that's happening with the biosphere"-style arguments.

Obviously on the face of it the premise is true, but time scales, operationalisation and causes/responsibilities matter critically there.

Islands of stability exist (like our homeostatic bodies, species that have survived for millions of years, old growth forests, etc) in nature. But whether one cares about (not unnecessarily, prematurely ending) any of this is a very different matter.

[thaumasiotes]

> species that have survived for millions of years

I mean, this is a perfect example of pretending that differences don't exist because you can't see them. There are no such species.

https://www.darklegacycomics.com/185

[RGamma]

Wrong taxon, I guess.

[thaumasiotes]

I'll use different terminology: there are no such organisms.