[flagged]
The parent's claim was "Biodiversity does not directly benefit everyone, while global trade does." If you or the parent want to make a more concrete and specific claim than this, I will happily reply in kind.
> No, extinction of species due to infections is not a planetary catastrophe. It's natural and perennial.
Indeed, but our human economy is built on top of relatively stable and predictable natural circumstances. If there is mass ecosystem collapse, the economy is coming down with it. If you don't believe this check out the graveyard of civlizations that overfarmed, overfished, clearcut forests, or otherwise weren't good stewards of their local ecology.
"How to best adapt to changes" is an interesting question which I'd happily discuss. "How to prevent changes" is a meaningless question.
Sorry, but I'm a bit baffled why you're being so insulting when you clearly don't know much about the subject at hand.
Yes, extinctions happen naturally.
Also yes, humans are causing extinction rates 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural extinction rates[1]
> 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
I'm well aware of the subject. If you open the link you'll see that the baseline is not "natural extinction rates" but "background extinction rates". That is rates during the periods of time when environment doesn't change. When environment does change however the rates are orders of magnitude higher. We live in the times of change.
Whether the Holocene extinction is on the level of the big six or on the level of other 30+ smaller known extinction events is up to the debate. Either way it's nothing new. You are here today thanks to all these extinction events, be grateful not to be a trilobite.
The comment I was replying above just throws together a bunch of words that sound good, like "diversity" and "sustainable", without any attempt at an actual analysis of the situation. That is not appreciated.
If you open the link you'll see that the current "change" is caused by humans. Spreading invasive species isn't the most significant cause, but it is a cause. So I don't see how that contests what I said.
Yes. And it's not the first time when one of the species change the environment so much to cause a mass extinction events. So what's your point?
> So I don't see how that contests what I said.
It depends on what you said because I don't see your messages up in the thread. Would be glad to reply to a specific opinion.
It is reductive to describe invasive species with no predators destroying native crops and forests as "natural."
Why is it that people that should know better, because they have all the capacities to, are the worst climato-skeptics ?! Unbelievable.
2. It's not just the speed, humans makes movements possible that were previously unlikely or impossible. Argentine ants are currently wreaking havoc across the globe. Do you think they would have ever found their way from Argentina to Australia and Hawaii without the help of humans?
3.
> contributing to biodiversity lol
Source needed
2. If they are successful as invasive species, then yes most likely that would happen given enough time. Even the most remote islands in the ocean are populated with life forms that are too modern to be explained with plate tectonics. Nature has it's ways (besides evolving humans).
3. As you noticed humans spread all kinds of viruses, insects, blights and other unfortunate beings. Like them or not, they are as valid as a part of the biosphere as the chestnut tree.