Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
The problem, though, is in demonstrating that your options 2 & 3 actually are sustainable. Given the current state of knowledge of ecosystem engineering, this can't be done (AFAIK, anyway). So it seems extremely likely that any such system would suffer catastrophic failure within a few generations, thus demonstrating - the hard way - that it wasn't sustainable.
|
That would be a possible problem for #3 ... #2 is only removing the exact same number of animals (even the same animal) as you were going to remove in the #1 type of option .. thus it can not possibly be any less sustainable than your type of #1 option .. but given the known horrible 20:1 or 80:1 crappy low efficiency of the luxury losses that are part of #1 type option ... odds are much better #2 will be more sustainable than #1.
Also .. I will still disagree with you assumption of failure as some kind of guaranteed outcome .. just because we are not 100% all knowing gods... much less the further assumption of it being a catastrophic failure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Indeed, I think we are experiencing the beginnings of such a catastrophic failure right now. Without major changes, I fully expect most vertebrate life to be extinct within a thousand years or so.
|
I disagree .. as they say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ... and I have not yet seen sufficient extraordinary evidence that would justify that degree of extraordinary claim.
What is your basis for this rather extreme type of catastrophic extraordinary conclusion/expectation ??