Balance of nature: bald eagle troubles (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, July 20, 2016, 12:12 (2837 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: 'Unless we really convey . . . the implications of that biodiversity loss for human well-being, for livelihood, then we can't really expect to be able to explain to decision makers why they should be paying money to conserve biodiversity,” ecologist Tom Oliver of Reading University in the U.K., who was not involved in the work, told The Verge."-David's comment: 'Nuff said: balance of nature is vital. I cannot tell you why it so higgledy-piggledy. That is simply what happened and both of us are stuck with explaining it.-Vital to what? In this article, “balance of nature” means what suits human beings. Your own “balance of nature” simply entailed the continuation of life. While there was life, there was balance. And the very fact that it is constantly changing (higgledy-piggledy) would seem to support the argument that there is no overall plan, and there never was one.