If scientists/biologists are so smart...
If these people are so smart, why do they all state: "We aren't sure why the (insert animal species) population is dwindling."?
Don't you think that even some of the dumbest people in the world can see that it is because we are mowing down their homes, polluting their water & air, while also littering on their land causing soil pollution? Wild animals get a double dose of crap because their prey is eating the same toxins, viruses and parasites.
What if you had no option, but to drink from a river without filtration every time you needed a drink?
Its sad to say that human extinction would be the best thing that has ever happened to the planet.
Don't you think that even some of the dumbest people in the world can see that it is because we are mowing down their homes, polluting their water & air, while also littering on their land causing soil pollution? Wild animals get a double dose of crap because their prey is eating the same toxins, viruses and parasites.
What if you had no option, but to drink from a river without filtration every time you needed a drink?
Its sad to say that human extinction would be the best thing that has ever happened to the planet.
Comments (6)
Because life is complicated and scientists are humble. In some cases it is straightforward, but quite often it isn't, because one thing affects other things and they affect other things and populations rise and fall quite naturally and stable, static equilibrium is pretty much an illusion. Any species might become an invasive destroyer of the environment, humans are not that special in this regard. Talk to any elm tree if you don't believe me.
Forests have higher biodiversity than most other biomes. No other creatures can wipe out entire forests completely without giving back any of the nutrients to the earth, except us. Then we cover it all up with a parking lot to ensure none of it will ever grow back.
Well yeah, at the moment, that's why they call it the anthropocene. But that boiling down is not very useful; one wants to know what things and what one could do differently, and then is gets complicated again. But even when there is a simple answer - "fossil fuels" nothing much happens. I don't think it's because scientists are not clear.
Using the Scientific Method and the scientific guidelines makes one very cautious in saying that one specific reason caused a complex phenomenon.
Hmm, maybe nothing changes on a large enough scale because human nature is too dependant on instant gratification/change. Theres a large percent of people in America that cant even go 1 day without polluting their own bodies with cigarettes, let alone not litter, use fossil fuels, or let CFCs into the atmosphere to save a few minutes at work. (Not judging smokers, just an example)
I guess its just that people want easier answers? Not just to be told that theyre living pollution-machines and to stop, because that wont help. We need something smaller to focus on, that will be easier to change!
Thanks again for opening my mind a bit! You have restored my faith in people who study these things!