Made possible by 1 grant from the Oregon State University Foundation.
Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
81–90 of 238 posts
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve always found the idea of “restoring” ecosystems a bit philosophically tricky. When we say that reintroducing wolves led to ecological improvements, what’s our reference point? Are we comparing it to Yellowstone 100 years ago? 500? Pre-human settlement? Ecological baselines are inherently arbitrary—there’s no objectively “correct” state of nature to return to. The systems we call degraded are often just different…
Another example: mosquitos. We can and should drive them to extinction. The species that feed on humans are nowhere food-web-critical. It's an arbitrary and wrong judgement that we should preserve mosquitos just because they happened to evolve with us. So what if eradicating them would be unnatural? So what if it would technically be a reduction in biodiversity? Not everything natural is good or optimal.
The interesting version of this is to exterminate the malaria carrying mosquito species. Only 40 of 3500 species can carry malaria. If we wipe them out, non malaria carrying species will likely take their place in the ecosystems.
250 million people have malaria, and 600k, mostly children die from it yearly.
And yet, I see a lot more people defending the mosquitos than the humans.
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve always found the idea of “restoring” ecosystems a bit philosophically tricky. When we say that reintroducing wolves led to ecological improvements, what’s our reference point? Are we comparing it to Yellowstone 100 years ago? 500? Pre-human settlement? Ecological baselines are inherently arbitrary—there’s no objectively “correct” state of nature to return to. The systems we call degraded are often just different…
Instead of thinking of this as a benefit of wolves (specifically), you can view it as an advantage of having something in their ecological niche. In this case, the niche is 'apex predator.' It's a niche which is repeated across pretty much every ecosystem. They keep populations of their prey species down, preventing overpopulation and the many indirect problems that come with it. Perhaps without an apex predator the…
That’s a strong point. Thanks for the thought
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#84Has no one considered the possibility that the aspen trees are eating the wolves to grow strong? I mean, we know that the decline of pirates causes global warming.
https://doctorspaghetti.org/pastafarians-pirates-and-climate...
We also know that dog predation of frisbees is a real problem for healthy disc populations.
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's incredible how much good we have done to ourselves in the past 250 years, and how much good we can do in the now and the future.
The question is how much of that power will we use to do good for the rest of the species on the planet? I’ve just finished reading “Not the end of the world” and found it to be an informative and balanced discussion on the topic that recognizes the vast benefits of human development (to humans), the cost to the rest of the planet and the progress we’ve made in the past 50 years in undoing some of the harm. This is a…
Which exact species do you want to help? Ticks, mosquitos and anthrax or more like birds, trees and elk? Where do you draw the line?
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#86It's amazing the impact that the reintroduction has had. On a recent winter trip there I also learned that the reintroduction literally moved rivers [1]: - Elk quit loitering along streams, so willow and cottonwood shot up, anchoring soil and narrowing channels. - The new woody growth gave beavers lumber; their colonies jumped from one in 1996 to a dozen within fifteen years, raising water tables and rebuilding wetla…
I’ve always found the idea of “restoring” ecosystems a bit philosophically tricky. When we say that reintroducing wolves led to ecological improvements, what’s our reference point? Are we comparing it to Yellowstone 100 years ago? 500? Pre-human settlement? Ecological baselines are inherently arbitrary—there’s no objectively “correct” state of nature to return to. The systems we call degraded are often just different…
> we’re shaping nature to fit human values
Biodiversity is a good measure of ecosystem health, no? Is it really a human value?
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve always found the idea of “restoring” ecosystems a bit philosophically tricky. When we say that reintroducing wolves led to ecological improvements, what’s our reference point? Are we comparing it to Yellowstone 100 years ago? 500? Pre-human settlement? Ecological baselines are inherently arbitrary—there’s no objectively “correct” state of nature to return to. The systems we call degraded are often just different…
Another example: mosquitos. We can and should drive them to extinction. The species that feed on humans are nowhere food-web-critical. It's an arbitrary and wrong judgement that we should preserve mosquitos just because they happened to evolve with us. So what if eradicating them would be unnatural? So what if it would technically be a reduction in biodiversity? Not everything natural is good or optimal.
Mosquito introduction is an historical event (1820) in Hawaii (New Zealand, the Caribbean, etc). This devastated local bird populations driving many to extinction and halving the avian population in approximately a year due to virus propagation. The death of the birds led to less seed dispersal, loss of forest, and increased susceptibility to invasive plants.
Some are ancient, but have adapted to thrive in some human environments, but have spread well past their original areas by colonialism, slave trade, shipping, and war. The idea that modern mosquitoes are some "natural" ecosystem element is pretty funny. Perhaps they have destroyed the habitat that once existed and driven out competing species which once fit into the niche, but they are in most places relatively modern in ways other biting flies are not. The growing effects of malaria are not only on humans, but other animals including both chimps and reptiles as well.
Anopheles/Aedes/Culex mosquitos are the grey goo of insects, driving other flies, midges, and even mosquitos (which local fish and larval predators have evolved with) to exinction. Treat them like the infection they are.
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's incredible how much good we have done to ourselves in the past 250 years, and how much good we can do in the now and the future.
These replies that simply restate a previous comment by inverting its meaning are really starting to annoy me. They're neither witty nor intelligent. Just lazy and annoying. Waiting for someone to reply to this doing exactly this
People assuming that last 250 years were predominantly harm are annoying. The human race is thriving by every objective metric of nature: population, lifespan, dispensable energy per capita.
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#89It's amazing the impact that the reintroduction has had. On a recent winter trip there I also learned that the reintroduction literally moved rivers [1]: - Elk quit loitering along streams, so willow and cottonwood shot up, anchoring soil and narrowing channels. - The new woody growth gave beavers lumber; their colonies jumped from one in 1996 to a dozen within fifteen years, raising water tables and rebuilding wetla…
I’ve always found the idea of “restoring” ecosystems a bit philosophically tricky. When we say that reintroducing wolves led to ecological improvements, what’s our reference point? Are we comparing it to Yellowstone 100 years ago? 500? Pre-human settlement? Ecological baselines are inherently arbitrary—there’s no objectively “correct” state of nature to return to. The systems we call degraded are often just different…
One point I rarely see made:
When you "destroy" an ecosystem, a new one will take its place. The remaining animals and plants will converge on a new balanced state.
The ecosystems we admire today are often that new balance after humans destroyed the natural one.
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#90I talked to a local who was friends with ranchers who now lose stock to wolves. They hate it. Its an interesting use case of local control, is the greater good more important than the people who live there?
Yes. They should nut up and get over it.