No.181
The administrators of Australia complain of the abundance of ground dwelling Laurasiatheria in the wilds of the land and the detrimental effect this has on the native ecology of said land but does not the basis of evolution lie on the notion of survival of the fittest? And is not Evolution a natural process? If these native creatures cannot handle the pressures introduced by the introduction of more advanced lifeforms then do they really have a place in this world? Who are we to interfere with natural selection.
Why should we genocide millions of cats, dogs(which are even recognised as native anyway), horses, buffalo, camels, goats, pigs and deer just so that a handful of stupid marsupials survive? And why should we care if they alter the flora of this place? The flora could do with some altering. This goes against the greater good.
Furthermore, they make the argument that the native ecology never co-evolved with predators such as the felid and vulpine and so therefore they are more vulnerable to these creatures and the aforementioned creatures should not be permitted to live in their environments. This simply is not true, there existed here the Thylacine, Tasmanian and Australian devils, quolls, Thylacoleo and a myriad of other such mammals.
No.182
the term survival of the fittest is very misused and often used as a justification to do horrible things rather than as a scientific theory....
No.183
>>182In this case they are doing horrible things in order to stop survival of the fittest though.
No.185
>>183Just means they weren't /fit/ enough :/
No.186
The most common sense way to see ecological conservation is as a fear or caution toward the unknown. It may be true that the native species of Australia are unfit compared to other invasive ones but the result of native species being out competed could be ecological collapse or environmental change in that or nearby areas; as the interplay between organisms and the environment is quite complex and rapid changes in one will also lead to rapid changes in the other. The complexity of these interactions are a tad beyond our grasp and more cautious folks would definitely ere on the side of not introducing unknown-unknowns into the world.
Another more philosophical perspective would see humans as something outside of nature that has no right to change the balance of an ecosystem and any changes to it is an affront to some higher power. I really wouldn’t care too much about that as humans are a part of nature and the ecosystem and anything we do to it is the ecosystem doing it to itself.
>>185I’m not convinced most denizens of /fit/ are even evolutionarily fit. They aren’t exactly posting about all their grandkids.
No.187
>>186Good! Then the Australian ecosystem can be replaced with a better one. Eucalyptus tress for example, are terrible in every way, they are highly flammable, they don't support much life other than life that has adapted specifically to it like useless and stupid koalas, they absorb lots of moisture and they drop leaves that are difficult to break down creating thick blankets that prevent any life forming below it.
No.188
And they are ugly.
No.190
>>188>>187Koalas or the trees?
No.192
survival of the fittest is bullflip
just keep these around for study
same as languages
who cares about the environment
No.193
>>192Exactly, enclose bits of parkland with dog and cat proof fences and then let the deer and cats and horses roam free through the rest of the land. The primitive species only need to be kept alive, they don't need to be widespread.
No.194
>>193reserves are tricky but it works
koalas deserve to live!
No.195
If you consider human effects on the ecosystem to be another part of natural selection, then aren't human initiatives to preserve endangered species the same thing?
No.196
I found this interesting video on de-extinction. More specifically de-extinction of the Thylacine.
He says that we have the technology to do this now, only that the technology itself is not advanced enough to do it within a practical time frame, but this is liable to change. But even so, these Thylacines will be the only thing of their ilk in existence, they will not have mummy Thylacines to teach them how to act or to hunt, but maybe after a few generations they will learn and pass it on to the next generations. Or maybe they will forever be entirely useless and rely on humans to feed them.
I was going to make a new thread about this but the I would be spamming the board in threads about Australian ecology I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYxUp8tERTo No.198
>>197What the hell... their numbers are this low?
No.199
>>198Yes, there are more in zoos though. It's because they have large ranges, they are fairly solitary and they can only really live in wilderness. It's why they need to be introduced to Australia.
No.223
>>196>I was going to make a new thread about this but the I would be spamming the board in threads about Australian ecology I think.Feel free to do so. That was a very cool video. I hope to see mammoths and thylacines in the future.
No.521
>>181This image is too deceiving. I always think she has absolutely gazonga size boobers
No.911
>>521saw it again and had the exact same thought. stupid australia boobers
No.916
Well, it's been a year and they still have not cloned a thylacine nor have I gotten a reply from the Minister for the Environment about my idea to introduce big cats to Australia. Sigh.....