The most used argument against predator removal is that prey species will breed out of control and destroy the environment. Here comes the Dodo bird.

The Dodo was a bird species that enden on an island without predators. According to the beforementioned theory of outbreeding, the Dodo should have consumed all the ressources on the island and starve. What happened instead was that it thrived.

The problem came, ironically, when humans settled the island and brought with them predators like cats that ultimately lead the the Dodo's extinction.

Now fair, the reason was that the Dodo lost the ability to protect itself aganst predators because it lived without them for so long. Bun the main thing is that the Dodo slowed its reproduction rate because there was not a need to fear predators.

So could this happen to other prey species in absence of predators ? This can also be seen in humans: We breed less the more developed we become.

https://youtu.be/yTo25n1BJew

Watch the video to know about it.

https://youtu.be/fGCG4XGV_D0?si=nWnjOLM-I3Lt0yCV

So, this community is very aware that many "human problems" are actually just problems with nature in general, like violence, competition, etc... Self-hating anthropocentrism is still anthropocentrism and suffers from similar logical flaws is the basic idea. So, it's a lot more complicated than a black and white "humanity versus nature" dichotomy, since humans are entirely the product of nature and evolution and so on -- and it all took place in the rugged, high-evolutionary-pressure continent of Africa, which explains some aspects of humanity.

Perhaps the most unsatisfyingly incomplete idea you see get tossed around is that we are an invasive species. The one oversight in that idea is Africa... It's a funnily overlooked issue. Are we allowed to do whatever we want to nature in the Horn of Africa, just because we're from there as a species? Obviously not. It just goes to show how important it is to see the big picture here. I've even heard someone say that humanity is an invasive species in the context of Africa before once... There are way less arbitrary ways to argue for conservation, honestly.

You have these certain people and many to some of them actually make up a significant portion of both anti-trashumanists and anti-transgender people in spite of them claiming they don't think the universe is of intelligent design.

They can stifle scientific progress and oppose its development because they think "Its arrogant and delusional for humans to tamper with the sacred processes of nature such as evolution and etc".

They still treat the "forces of nature" as things worthy of veneration even if they bring nothing to the well-being of life generally without intervention of humans. Even though the image or ideal of what they venerate may not match the uncoordinated mindless force of reality.

Gene editing, transhumanism or ability to change your body is seen as "an act of sacrilege against the sacred processes" by these people. I think they are common in the U.K but not sure. Whether intentionally or not these people create what can be considered "the god of or the god evolution" and "the god, biology".

The biggest "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!" to the point of total meltdown from these people I imagine is if someday humans were to find out and prove that other universes exist then bring in forces that care about stopping suffering among life from one of those to give our shitty version of nature the overdue makeover it needs.

Granted that some animals and humans can be malicious and act like assholes out of their own free will, but I don't see why I should conclude that life itself is bad.

Life has given us:
-An amazing self healing and self repairing body that does its best to keep us as safe and as healthy as possible
-An amazing capacity for thinking deep thoughts
-The possibility to experience joy
-The ability to experience awesome dreams and lucid dreams for free, how cool is this?
-The ability to enjoy the sun, which is a good source of energy and feel the wind on our skin
-Seeing the beautiful stars at night
-The ability to feed ourselves from sustainable win-win relationships such as pollination or eating fruits and helping it spread its seeds

No, really the problem seem more to be with individuals abusing their free-will to be assholes and initiate harm against other sentient beings than life itself being bad.

If everyone behaved properly, we would have far less problems than we currently have, which hints that the problem may not be life itself.

I got into an argument with someone about India's plan to reintroduce cheetahs to their country by importing them from Africa. The person was complaining about it, saying that they should be importing Asiatic cheetahs instead, because African cheetahs aren't native.

But what's the difference? There are only minor genetic differences between the two, and they're considered the same species. I brought this up and the person backpedaled, then went on about how India needs to help Iran conserve their cheetah population, and then import the Asiatic cheetahs from there once there are enough. Apparently bringing in African cheetahs is just the easy option and a "publicity stunt". But it would be okay, apparently, if Asiatic cheetahs were extinct. What's wrong? Is Africa is too far away? Are they too different from each other? How different can they be?

And then this silliness: "India-Iran relations span centuries marked by meaningful interactions. Indeed, the two countries shared a border until 1947 and share several common features in their language, culture and traditions. [...] There is/was a golden conservation opportunity here, therefore, together with the attendant benefits of positive international profile for both countries, and a continuation/deepening of a relationship between two countries with already long-standing ties."

Hey, guess what. The Indian ecosystem doesn't care where its cheetahs came from. I'll bet if African cheetahs weren't considered a separate subspecies, this person would be fine with it. This idea is built 100% around what this person thinks is aesthetically pleasant, and not about what the ecosystem actually needs. This is a perfect example of the "appeal to tradition" fallacy.

Nature also doesn't care about "international profile". That is far more of a "publicity stunt" than anything. It makes zero difference from the cheetahs' perspective, or any sentient being's perspective, other than some judgemental humans.

Also, how much would shoving some cats around even make towards "international profile" anyway?

And even if Asian cheetahs were better, is it really that horrible to put African ones there in the meantime? Is it not possible to import cheetahs from Africa and also work with Iran?

What's with this?

You’ll probably disagree with some of this French philosopher’s philosophy, especially his politics but his views on nature are spot on:

“In the whole vast domain of living nature there reigns an open violence, a kind of prescriptive fury which arms all the creatures to their common doom. As soon as you leave the inanimate kingdom, you find the decree of violent death inscribed on the very frontiers of life. You feel it already in the vegetable kingdom: from the great catalpa to the humblest herb, how many plants die, and how many are killed. But from the moment you enter the animal kingdom, this law is suddenly in the most dreadful evidence. A power of violence at once hidden and palpable … has in each species appointed a certain number of animals to devour the others. Thus there are insects of prey, reptiles of prey, birds of prey, fishes of prey, quadrupeds of prey. There is no instant of time when one creature is not being devoured by another. Over all these numerous races of animals man is placed, and his destructive hand spares nothing that lives. He kills to obtain food and he kills to clothe himself. He kills to adorn himself, he kills in order to attack, and he kills in order to defend himself. He kills to instruct himself and he kills to amuse himself. He kills to kill. Proud and terrible king, he wants everything and nothing resists him.

From the lamb he tears its guts and makes his harp resound ... from the wolf his most deadly tooth to polish his pretty works of art; from the elephant his tusks to make a toy for his child - his table is covered with corpses ... And who in all of this will exterminate him who exterminates all others? Himself. It is man who is charged with the slaughter of man ... So it is accomplished ... the first law of the violent destruction of living creatures. The whole earth, perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but a vast altar upon which all that is living must be sacrificed without end, without measure, without pause, until the consummation of things, until evil is extinct, until the death of death.”

A few years ago, I tried to work out in the gym. I set a goal that within a year, I would grow muscles. It lasted only two months and then I quit. Since then, I gained lots of weight and I still struggle with the idea of getting back in shape, but I realized something. If I go back to the gym, I couldn't work out hard enough to get the reward I wanted, so this dream is kinda dead to me, but I still envy muscular men.

Until very recently, I thought I could do whatever I wanted without putting myself through distress and still get rewarded. I thought I could squeeze as much as I'd like, and get the juice I need.

Turns out the world doesn't go this way. To get "rewarded" or compensated, you have to put yourself through distress and trauma, there's no escape from that. But here's the kicker, what if nothing is worth getting yourself in such distress to begin with? What no amount nor quality of juice justifies squeezing so hard?

This puts me in a very hard position. I'm not given the choice to play easy and get an easy reward, but there's a minimum standard that I have to do, and if I don't do it, I'm screwed. This is true not only for gym workout, but for education, work , and other things that require some sort of an effort. This place is hell