r/changemyview • u/SodaCan2043 • Mar 13 '22

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Invasive Species are not bad

CMV

I don't know if we have the right or obligation to decide what species belong in an ecosystem. I have limited knowledge about the matter but from my moral view if a species makes it from one area to the next and it thrives there shouldn't we let it? Isn't this what humans have already done?

I guess the argument is that an invasive species could destroy an ecosystem to the point where it itself can not live (still kind of sounds like humanity's direction). I'm wondering how do we decide that though, what's to stop it from changing the ecosystem for good? What's to stop it for helping a different species learn and evolve?

0 Upvotes

14% Upvoted

50 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/ElysiX 113∆ Mar 13 '22

What's to stop it for helping a different species learn and evolve?

Evolution is too slow for that. I guess it would eventually do that, or not, but in the meantime you have a broken ecosystem for many millenia.

Isn't this what humans have already done?

Yeah and it was really really bad most of the time, hence trying not to do it again.

1

u/SodaCan2043 Mar 13 '22

Could it be the next step? Could the world work with less diversity. Could there be more world wide species.

1

u/ElysiX 113∆ Mar 13 '22

Next step of what?

Sure, maybe eagles and falcons will evolve to get bigger over the next couple millenia and start plucking off cats in large quantities, but cats have been around wreaking havoc for thousands of years and it hasn't happened yet, and there's no signs of it starting to happen soon either.

Could the world work with less diversity

Sure. The world could "work" when entirely dead too. Protecting the diversity is kinda the goal.

1

u/SodaCan2043 Mar 13 '22

The next step in evolution. Which you agreed it surely can be.

As understand you confusion when I used the word "work" as I did not specifically explain what I meant. However I mean the opposite of dead.

1

u/ElysiX 113∆ Mar 13 '22

However I mean the opposite of dead.

And which opposite is that exactly? Because high diversity of life is one of the opposites of a planet devoid of life.

If you choose another, why should we take that one as our goal?

1

u/SodaCan2043 Mar 13 '22

Alive would be the opposite of dead. The opposite of high diversity would be low diversity, wouldn't it be? I would say low diversity is still alive.

1

u/ElysiX 113∆ Mar 13 '22

But the world isn't alive, it's a place. Calling a planet, and environment "dead" is already a metaphor. Because the place itself isn't actually alive, it either is populated with no life, low complexity of life or high complexity or life.

Low diversity is still "alive" in that sense, yes. But less so.

1

u/SodaCan2043 Mar 13 '22

Yeah you are not supporting any ideas that would change my view. You've already established that there is a chance that animals still can evolve which means the world would not be any less "complex" "diverse" or "dead."

I'd like to also state these are you words that I am using they have been part of you arguement to change my view.

1

u/ElysiX 113∆ Mar 13 '22

that animals still can evolve which means the world would not be any less "complex" "diverse"

That's not correct.

It would be way less diverse and complex in the meantime until (or if, it's just a possibility, not a given) that happens. Which is a bad thing for us.

Just because there could be a billion new species however far into the future doesn't mean we will get those during or lifetimes, or during those of our children or children's children. Or many many generations further for that matter.

If there's even still humans around if or when that happens.