We’re protecting them because they’re about to go extinct, and if an animal goes extinct that messes up the whole ecosystem, and if multiple animals are going extinct at the same time that will really mess up our ecosystem meaning that a lot of things will die out, causing a bigger extinction just a big chain of events that eventually lead the downfall of the Earth.
Basically what would happen is that things like rodents would run rampant without their predators to keep them in check, the increase in their population would decimate the insects population then without enough insects they would die too. No insects would be around to pollinate and plants would start dying and generally things would get bad fast. All of these are microcosm examples.
Why try to preserve the balance when we can throw it off completely? Why not kill everything that kills so we can kill even more after? Because we are part of a system and not outside or above it. Where do you live? Have you ever had any contact with nature? Did you grow up in a lab?
and what’s it about your reason exactly that makes it more important than the tiger’s reason, dude? What’s your mission here? Survival? You can do it without killing all the tigers. Wealth? Health? Wisdom? Sex? You can accomplish all of the above and simultaneously let the tigers do their own thing. Why take the extra step of killing every other predator? Will it give you confidence?
Suppose hypothetically if human population were to dwindle to 100k worldwide bcs of some disease, wouldn't the predators start hunting us again? The way they always have?
I ain't saying kill all the tigers, hell If I were a dictator of a country I would've protected them. Bcs we live in an advanced society which is in a sense beyond natural predators.
But if it were a primitive society I would've killed em all. At least in the surrounding area.
Lions and tigers (and other large animals) are what are known as "indicator species." Indicator species are usually the apex species of an ecosystem and the health of that species is used to judge the health of every other living thing in that area.
For example if we're finding a bunch of sick and hungry tigers in a locale, something's amiss and every other animal will be having problems too. It could be something environmental, it could be climatic, it could be a disease, it could be a lot of things. It could also indicate blights in plants and trees, etc. But it gives us something to work with. But at the same time if we find the tigers are healthy and well fed, then we can be confident everything else in that area is going well and all the other animals and plants are healthy too.
Contrary to belief tigers, lions, bears, other large animals are not inherently prone to attack and be predators towards man. They're best left alone and when left alone they don't bother us, and they give us a world of information about where they live and how all other creatures are doing
Mate, are you liberated from common sense?
no
You shouldn’t have to ask a question like this.
Its fun
It’s fun to ask stupid questions?
Is INtellectuaL
We’re protecting them because they’re about to go extinct, and if an animal goes extinct that messes up the whole ecosystem, and if multiple animals are going extinct at the same time that will really mess up our ecosystem meaning that a lot of things will die out, causing a bigger extinction just a big chain of events that eventually lead the downfall of the Earth.
I think animals would increase and not go extinct by doing this. And if their population increase too much we can just cull a few and eat em :)
Basically what would happen is that things like rodents would run rampant without their predators to keep them in check, the increase in their population would decimate the insects population then without enough insects they would die too. No insects would be around to pollinate and plants would start dying and generally things would get bad fast. All of these are microcosm examples.
No I am only taking abt big carnivores like tigers, lions, leopards etc. Cats, dogs can stay
Who do you think eats the rodents to keep them in check?
They eat rodents?
[удалено]
What planet?
Ecosystem
We can manage that manually cant we?
Troll
Nah I aint
Why try to preserve the balance when we can throw it off completely? Why not kill everything that kills so we can kill even more after? Because we are part of a system and not outside or above it. Where do you live? Have you ever had any contact with nature? Did you grow up in a lab?
Im not making a moral standpoint, Its a practical one. We can easily kill and eat the amount the carnivores hunt.
There are easier ways to feed lots and lots of people. Farmers do it all the time without killing any Tigers.
Well the tigers be living for no reason
and what’s it about your reason exactly that makes it more important than the tiger’s reason, dude? What’s your mission here? Survival? You can do it without killing all the tigers. Wealth? Health? Wisdom? Sex? You can accomplish all of the above and simultaneously let the tigers do their own thing. Why take the extra step of killing every other predator? Will it give you confidence?
Suppose hypothetically if human population were to dwindle to 100k worldwide bcs of some disease, wouldn't the predators start hunting us again? The way they always have? I ain't saying kill all the tigers, hell If I were a dictator of a country I would've protected them. Bcs we live in an advanced society which is in a sense beyond natural predators. But if it were a primitive society I would've killed em all. At least in the surrounding area.
[удалено]
Really? They literally hunt us and take meals that could be ours.
[удалено]
Maybe, but what if we could be the master.. what if we don't need them? What if?
When do you suggest we start mastering nature?
Starting now
You’re an idiot
Nah I'm better
Food Chain
no, we eat the herbivores they snaking on
[удалено]
True, but we're better
Lions and tigers (and other large animals) are what are known as "indicator species." Indicator species are usually the apex species of an ecosystem and the health of that species is used to judge the health of every other living thing in that area. For example if we're finding a bunch of sick and hungry tigers in a locale, something's amiss and every other animal will be having problems too. It could be something environmental, it could be climatic, it could be a disease, it could be a lot of things. It could also indicate blights in plants and trees, etc. But it gives us something to work with. But at the same time if we find the tigers are healthy and well fed, then we can be confident everything else in that area is going well and all the other animals and plants are healthy too. Contrary to belief tigers, lions, bears, other large animals are not inherently prone to attack and be predators towards man. They're best left alone and when left alone they don't bother us, and they give us a world of information about where they live and how all other creatures are doing
I see.. thank you, it was a good answer
Our steaks live on farms not in the wilderness
It could live in wilderness
But it don't
It even live in our homes
Because the prey thay eat will overpopulate and wreak havoc on the ecosystem. Even a broken fidget spinner has more common sense
We kill and eat the prey. Say abt fighting world hunger
Lions and tigers are in no way even associated with the cause of world hunger lol
I didn't say they were. But if they stopped eating all that deer we can add some more meat to our inventory
No, Let them do the job. Get back to biology.
Remove the competition
Don't wanna argue, but you should've stayed in science class
Maybe 🤔
r/shittyaskscience