ABEL\'S UNIVERSE (General)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, November 18, 2011, 00:53 (4564 days ago) @ Abel

There is also the argument that predators strengthen a species by weeding out the old, the deformed, the weak and the diseased.

No doubt about it, they most certainly do, but that does not make them a necessity. It does make them a high demand luxury item though. :)

A good example of what happens when you introduce a species into an environment where it has no natural predators is Australia and its' rabbit problem. Without going into great detail, rabbits were so successful at being just herbivores that they were wiping out many native species because their presence alone upset the balance of nature.

How many plant and animal species might be extinct because of rabbits? I don't know. But rabbit extermination still costs Australia millions every year as they attempt to control this cute, harmless, little problem. This is but one example among many of how the introduction of one species destroyed another, and obviously, you don't have to be a predator to do it.

But what you are talking about here is ARTIFICIAL introduction of a non-native species into an environment. The rabbit was not a native to that environment. It was imported from Europe which boasts a much more accommodating landscape. Moreover, the rabbits that they introduced had been bred in captivity for some time, which would have produced a breed that, having had access to an abundance of food, would have encouraged larger litters of offspring. This would normally be considered a desirable trait in an animal bred in captivity as it would mean more food for the dinner table. When those animals were released into the wild however, there was still enough food to sustain their breeding rates, and until that level of sustenance decreases to the point where it can no longer sustain it, those breeding rates will not change. This is a prime example of what I meant when I said that humans have no concept of homeostasis. If humans were not interfering with the situation, nature would balance it out in her own time. However, we are interfering. Even if we didn't kill off the rabbits, by artificially planting crops and doing what we can to increase the greenery in the area we are supporting the food source of the rabbit population.

Now, suppose for a moment that we remove humanity from the equation entirely, and also remove any predatory creatures. That would leave us with only herbivores, insects, scavengers, and plants(Not counting microbial life forms). Even if there were multiple forms of flora, and multiple forms of fauna, they would in time reach a point of homeostasis if left to their own devices. This would happen, most likely in a number of ways. Plants would develop chemicals to either attract or repel creature that feed on them based on the needs of the plants, and the animals would adapt to either be able to eat those plants, or to survive off a different form of plant. And so evolution would go on. Birthrates would fluctuate over time to accommodate the supply of food, in turn generating a supply of food for the plants. Even in this scenario, there is no need for predation.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.