Fren? *looks it up* Not fren😡 : chapotraphouse

[-] ashinadash@hexbear.net 41 points 3 months ago

Looking at invasive species like hesitation-2 for the good of local ecosystems...

[-] ComradeRat@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago

Too real

[-] Rom@hexbear.net 30 points 3 months ago

Invasive species struggle session let's goooooooooooo lets-fucking-go

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

what-time-is-it

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

Invasive species are a net negative if left alone because they outcompete surrounding species. This leads to reduced biodiversity because nothing can specialize quickly enough to fill gaps left by the disappearance of native species.

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

Alas, hesitation-2 is required

[-] Flyberius@hexbear.net 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Is that not a cicada of some sort?

Edit: spotted lantern fly... Evil

[-] Posadas@hexbear.net 34 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

spotted lanternfly

Edit: I wouldn't say they're evil, they don't have the capacity to be evil. Unfortunately we have to kill them to protect the trees.

[-] KoboldKomrade@hexbear.net 17 points 3 months ago

Hate when I have a healthy plant (luckily haven't seen many bad bugs), and learn I should kill it. Happening a lot where I moved to right now. Old owners (one of which i think was a cop lol) planted a bunch of stuff, some of which is banned in other states for how bad they are.

Killed a bush and replaced it with a native this season. Was very sad but had to be done.

[-] Paulie@hexbear.net 16 points 3 months ago

I killed a lantern fly is the equivalent of i-voted

[-] Ocommie63@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 3 months ago

Killkillkillkillkillkillkillkill

[-] Black_Mald_Futures@hexbear.net 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

i read someone on here saying a few days ago that actually they're not as harmful as people have been led to believe? idk

that's the only reason I recognize it since I looked it up after reading that comment + mention of trees of heaven

[-] SoylentSnake@hexbear.net 14 points 3 months ago

That was me. I think rule of thumb from ppl who know what they’re talking about is still invasive species gotta go sadly, even though that is also probably still true (not as bad as thought) :( lantern boys are both beautiful and cute though why why why

[-] sovietknuckles@hexbear.net 14 points 3 months ago

What is it

[-] Posadas@hexbear.net 18 points 3 months ago

spotted lanternfly

[-] Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 9 points 3 months ago

wow nice photo

[-] Feinsteins_Ghost@hexbear.net 8 points 3 months ago

[removed by mod]

[-] Paulie@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago

Extremely ignorant comment. Go read a book

[-] Feinsteins_Ghost@hexbear.net 17 points 3 months ago

lol ok. It’s an invasive species. Get off your soap box

[-] HelltakerHomosexual@hexbear.net 13 points 3 months ago

yall are losers

[-] gay_king_prince_charles@hexbear.net 10 points 3 months ago

That's a prerequisite for posting here

[-] HelltakerHomosexual@hexbear.net 5 points 3 months ago

this is true

[-] Paulie@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago

[removed by mod]

[-] GlueBear@hexbear.net 31 points 3 months ago

I think it's fine to kill invasive species, just because it's going to get worse doesn't mean you just give up.

Those invasive species are going to lead to the death of native species, and when that doom spiral happens you've really gone and fucked the ecosystem.

Same logic behind eating invasive Asian carp; if you don't kill it it will kill a native species.

[-] PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

These animals are just existing.

Claiming we have a right to murder them for being in the wrong place is cruel - they have only spread there as a result of humanity.

Do we have a right to eradicate humanity in turn?

[-] Facky@hexbear.net 27 points 3 months ago

Humans can change their behavior and protect nature. Other invasive species cannot.

[-] PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

So we have a right to murder innocent animals because we, the most destructive species in history, have deemed them “invasive”?

[-] LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA@hexbear.net 29 points 3 months ago

Invasive species will lead to ecosystems being further destroyed. do you have any fuckin clue what you're talking about?

[-] PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It’s a moral consideration this isn’t a fucking logic problem.

I don’t value ecosystems, but I do value animal lives. Unsure how I could be wrong about that on a moral level.

If a pack of dogs was loose in a forest; I would not kill the dogs, for example.

[-] AdlachGyfiawn@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Don't be silly. All moral considerations are logic problems. Theory without praxis is immaterial at best and concern trolling at worst.

And ecosystems are made up of a sum of lives, animal and otherwise. Their collapse inherently kills animals. There is no moral superiority in allowing deaths by inaction.

[-] LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA@hexbear.net 7 points 3 months ago

If the pack of wild dogs was eating every single deer and you wouldn't kill the dogs, you do not value animal lives.

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

Do we have the right to stop a forest fire simply because we deem it dangerous?

[-] PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago

Having the same moral value for a fire and living creature is wrong.

You can do a million things other than kill them to fix the problem… but killing them is cheapest, so that’s what’s done.

[-] GlueBear@hexbear.net 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I mean I'm not gonna kill myself because a few billionaires fucked the environment.

I feel like blaming the whole human species for ecosystem collapse and climate change isn't fair since we've existed for millennia, and the world was fine then.

"The industrial revolution and its consequences", not "the human species and its consequences"

[-] KoboldKomrade@hexbear.net 16 points 3 months ago

It is crueler to let them destroy ecosystems they did not evolve in.

And no one (who is a leftist) would argue to kill humans outside of Africa, because we can choose not to be invasive butts. We are because of capitalism. These things are because of instinct. There is no way these can reasonably fit into the system they are introduced to, without massive damage to the local system.

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

I see no reason to value the current ecosystem. It’s completely arbitrary.

If we had tech capable of it, would we be obligated to restore past ecosystems? What if doing so destroyed the current ecosystem? At some point every species alive today displaced another.

What makes the ecosystem as it exists right now especially valuable?

In my view? Unlike ecosystems, animals are actually alive and can suffer. I choose to value their lives over an arbitrary relation of animals at a point in time called an ecosystem.

[-] citrussy_capybara@hexbear.net 13 points 3 months ago

invasive humans also need to die sometimes, your ‘gotcha’ doesn’t work

the “just existing” native habitat lanternfly isn’t being killed, only ones where the lanterflys are committing genocidal extinction of other species

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

Humans are indigenous idk what to tell you

[+] Paulie@hexbear.net 1 points 3 months ago

[deleted]

[-] 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.

[-] LesbianLiberty@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago

You're right, due to the enormity of the task we should just give up lol