|Re: What would you do?|
Subject: Re: What would you do?
by CantaExigo on 2010/2/13 10:50:49
I think the problem is that you're relying on a high-school level of understanding to illustrate your point
Let's take your example then. If we kill the carnivores that eat the herbivores, the herbivores would reproduce massively and bring the plant population down, correct? What then? Of course, the herbivores would start dying of starvation and their populations would dwindle. At the same time their population shrinks, the plants would grow again, until an equilibrium is reached.
Like I said, you're only looking at the small picture. If you look at the big picture, you would understand what I am talking about. Nature repairs itself, always. It may not repair itself in a way we like, but it always does, and it is indifferent about it.
If I did, it may have been because I did not understand it. Please clarify, I'm interested in what you have to say
I'm essentially arguing that no matter what the level of toxicity, nature will adapt. All changes are subjective to humans, positive or negative.
If you wish to argue this point, there are many things you have to do. First, you need to illustrate an objective scale of how nature is supposed to be. In other words, if I break the ozone layer, why is that OBJECTIVELY bad? Unless you can answer that question, your argument holds no weight.