• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No. If cats dont have anything to eat bcs their food is also extinct then they absolutely cannot just continue fine without us.

    Same with plants, all of them require eg water of certain qualities etc.

    We are changing habitats (and killing species trough that), not killing specific species directly (eg hunting, pesticides, etc) and via the lack of them changing the habitats.

    And by changing the habitats I mean at speeds far beyond what evolution can keep up with, so it comes to more of a reset. So the sadness of this wiki/Biodiversity_loss followed by booms like wiki/Cambrian_explosion, but ofc note the timescales.

    • Marxism-Fennekinism
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Biodiversity loss and the loss of all life are two completely different things. Biodiversity loss and mass extinction has happened numerous times in the history of life. The one caused by us isn’t even the most significant one. We’re not even the most significant group of organisms that has caused mass extinctions, that probably goes to the myriad prehistoric species that caused the initial rapid rise in water and atmospheric oxygen levels which ended up killing most organisms including most of themselves (whom we owe our own existence to by the way, when species die out other species fill their place). Obviously not saying that we shouldn’t do something about our ecological impact, but the idea that unless WE fix ourselves all life is doomed is just not true and is a pretty “white knight” attitude. The reason we should clean up our act is for our own survival, we shouldn’t delude ourselves that all life on Earth is counting on us. “Nature” or “the ecosystem” as an entity really doesn’t care what happens to it, nor does it have any ability to care.