Fren? looks it up Not fren😡 (hexbear.net)

submitted 3 months ago by Posadas@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Kaputnik@hexbear.net 33 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Bad bit, invasive species are incredibly damaging to local ecosystems oftentimes causing mass die offs, if not extinctions, of local flora and fauna. See round gobies, Asian carp, and zebra mussels in the great lakes. More often than not invasive species are introduced accidentally into ecosystems by humans, they are not naturally migrating there.

We do see migrations of animals further north as the climate warms like armadillos and deer ticks in the Americas but these are not treated as invasive species. Similarly, species not native to an ecosystem but have become naturalized and are therefore not as damaging are not treated as invasive, like European starlings, dandelions, and pigeons in North America.

Now from a Vegan POV im-vegan I don't know what the best solution to invasive species would be. I have heard some vegans make the argument that invasive species control is better as it results in less animal death overall but it is difficult.

[-] citrussy_capybara@hexbear.net 22 points 3 months ago

being for animal liberation and against mass animal enslavement and cruelty doesn’t mean that culling animals is never necessary, just as being for human liberation and against human enslavement and cruelty doesn’t mean that it’s never necessary to cull fascists

and stopping animal extinction, like stopping genocide, can make it necessary to do some killing

the “always let animals be and wreck the environment” is LIB shit like “isntreal has the right to defend itself”

that said, human intervention has to be carefully thought out to not cause harm, and sometimes not intervening can be the best course of action

[-] Paulie@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago

That isn’t my point. The invasive species are a product of a man made cause which is forcing various species to seek alternative habitats due to the conditions created by the burgeroise and their endless quest for nonrenewable resources / wealth.

“Invasive” is a byproduct of the shifts in climate that we don’t take into consideration, the “invasive” species turning up and ruining new ecosystems is within itself because of the fact their ecosystems were destroyed in the first place. It baffles me because you don’t question the habitats before the migration, the issue now is “they’re in my habitat and must be destroyed.”

Its like the analogy of voting the lesser evil as if you’ll ever get your utopia out of them, the climate is destroyed, yes there is a 60 year buffer but if we are seeing species that have traveled across the pond and they are flourishing in our habitat that is less likely an issue of “invasive species” it’s the larger issue regarding the ever increasing speed at which climate is destroying entire ecosystems.

[-] neo@hexbear.net 20 points 3 months ago

Which invasive species are you thinking of which migrated on its own? They're typically labeled invasive because they were carelessly introduced by some humans, not because of climate change. Not yet, at least.

[-] Paulie@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If you don’t think the spike of lantern flies across the US isn’t part of climate shifts then you simply don’t understand how dire the situation is. It is fact the lantern flies emigrated with the help of humans, but I don’t see why this important piece of information isn’t the most vital, why a species since 2014 has been able to flourish up till this year and not just in one season but all seasons.

From my perspective, I’ve seen lantern flies all year round when I used to only see them through during August-September. The concern here is climate and the way climate has shifted so much that species that have existed across the continent are content with cohabiting in a place pre 2014 would have been able to survive. Climate is 100% the issue here and lantern flies really are only one small portion of change we will actually be exposed to. Killing them in mass is futile, you might think you’re saving your ecosystem but frankly the ecosystem has already been claimed by the never ending and persistent increase of climate. Many creatures’s habitats have been destroyed, it feels like your solution to all this is the lib way of “vote them out” when the damage has already been done but not like last year twenty years ago. There is a buffer with climate change and we are about in the 1970s range of feeling the effects from that year. In the coming years more and more issues will arise, and you think that stomping on flies is going to help your problem. What about when there’s water shortages? What about when the soils are no longer fertile because the minerals required for plant growth seize to exist.

You think the solution is to encourage more death, the death is already here and it’s already approaching, the only thing you’re doing is adding to the chaos. We cannot change the course of nature as it stands. With the amount of toxic chemicals dispersed to drive profit of our produce, to the oils used to fuel the machines that cull them, you really think a fly is the issue.