He unironically cares about endangered species

>he unironically cares about endangered species

INFP tier. The very fact that they're already endangered means nothing will be impacted if they go fully extinct.

Shit like the panda could go extinct with no consequence on it's environment. Alot of ugly creatures or scary shit like sharks that are endangered though would have a huge impact on their environments but sadly people only want to save the cute critters and not beetles that eat shit.

no dude, you're not getting my point.

If something is already endangered, no point in saving it; the world has already proven that it can survive without its presence. The wiggers will chimp out about it, but nothing of substance will actually happen when it goes extinct.

if something is showing a downward trend, especially if it's something particularly important like bees, then there should by all means be an intervention.

but if there is some super obscure rhino clade of a subsubspecies of a subspecies of an otherwise prolific species, which is only a drop in the bucket of herbivorous megafauna, then it can get fucked. Pun intended.

>INFP
could you please avoid bringing up horoscopes?

>but nothing of substance will actually happen when it goes extinct.

do you not understand how nature works on cascading systems? to be really simple about it if a rhino goes extinct all of the energy that goes into making a rhino returns to the environment. even if it's a herbivorous species that means that the plant landscape changes, the insect community and microorganisms change. everything that eats the huge shits they take now has to eat elsewhere.
just because the world doesn't immediately go dark in response to a single species going extinct doesn't mean it has no effect. the world works on a much larger timescale than you're portraying here.


also your point ignores all the human causes for extinction like habitat fragmentation and climate change.

if it's already endangered the damage is done. the species is functionally absent from the environment already.

this is true but environment is usually worse off. the pragmatic strategy is to prevent current species from going endangered in the first place.

>using MBTI results as an insult
>believing in the MBTI
If the test were accurate, you'd score an F.

>If something is already endangered, no point in saving it; the world has already proven that it can survive without its presence.
The fuck?
What exactly is it you think people are trying to prevent? Because it sounds like you're imagining some kind of Hollywood Mad Max apocalypse. and anything less then that isn't an issue.
"Species going extinct" IS the impact we're trying to avoid, so of course letting a species die out is a problem.

>We must save da qt animals :(

Or you stop your childish vision of life and let nature do its work, thats how life finds its way and evolves.

>We must save da qt animals :(
Loss of biodiversity is a serious problem. It's also nearly irreversible.

>Or you stop your childish vision of life and let nature do its work, thats how life finds its way and evolves.
Life is going to "finds its way and evolve" under literally any conditions we could create. That doesn't mean they're all equally desirable.

>let nature do its work, thats how life finds its way and evolves
so I guess we should let ~90% of animal life go extinct, let massive bacterial blooms turn the oceans into lethally euxinic ooze, and let runaway aridity cover the landmasses in barren deserts. after all, that's just nature doing its thing!

Fucking brainlet, delete thread and kill yourself

owo

>if a rhino goes extinct all of the energy that goes into making a rhino returns to the environment. even if it's a herbivorous species that means that the plant landscape changes, the insect community and microorganisms change. everything that eats the huge shits they take now has to eat elsewhere.

none of that matters if the total rhino or even herbivorous megafauna population stays relatively constant.

if the white northern two-pronged fork-anused rhino goes extinct, but the total biomass of rhinos, elephants, and other grazing mammals stays constant, then there's no change.

The only change would be that a weird looking rhino can't be seen in the safaris anymore. But the environment would not be negatively affected from a human standpoint.

Unless you can prove that the animal has some unique utility, then no it isn't worth saving.

A good example is bees, bees are major pollinators. So a reduction in bee counts is a real problem that should be fixed.

But let's say that the sei whale goes extinct. What's going to happen? Nothing. Because sei whales are a critically endangered drop in the bucket compared to the total whale population of 2 million.

Even if all whales went extinct, what would actually happen? There would be more fish and plankton in the sea. It would reach a new equilibrium. Perhaps one with more dolphins, sharks, and pinnipeds, and lower seafood prices in the human world.

Preserving biodiversity for it's own sake is a childish endeavor, that's all I'm saying.

For one, you don't know enough about rhinos to name a single real species. Two, there's more to a species than general diet and biomass, and it's likely that some other organism has developed a relationship with that specific rhino. Three, your entire post is based on "if the total rhino or even herbivorous megafauna population stays relatively constant," which is just not what's happening.

>but what if
you have 30 seconds to tell me why I should give a single shit about rhinos going extinct.

hardmode: you can't mention how cool they look.

>he doesnt know that most animals are either food supply or usefull to chemical industry

>he doesnt know that most animals are either food supply or usefull to chemical industry

Name a single endangered animal that is critical to our food supply, chemical industry, or medicinal industry.

Bees.

Learn 10th grade biology. Trophic levels are less subjective than you think. An user already explained it to you plainly; I'm not sure how I could further convince you

>mastiff
>isn't the most mastiff like
good one op

>Even if all whales went extinct, what would actually happen?
okay you massive gaylord, whales are actually vital to benthic/abyssal ecosystems. when a whale dies and sinks to the bottom, it brings huge amounts of nutrients from the surface, sustaining all sorts of weird critters. (whale poop does a similar thing, just not as dramatically.)
and guess what benthic nutrient transport is important to? the health of the entire oceans. the greatest marine productivity hotspots are where deep upwelling brings nutrients back to the surface, driving the entire local ecosystem. cutting off the nutrient circulation driven by marine megafauna could wreck a lot of fisheries.

know what you're talking about before you make ignorant assumptions. this whole thread is an embarrassment.
>hurr I don't know shit about these, surely nothing bad will happen if we get rid of them.

he said critically impacted

Bees are dying at an alarming rate.

>you have 30 seconds to tell me why I should give a single shit about rhinos going extinct.
Because preventing it would be a thousand times easier than bringing them back after they go extinct.
You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss irreversible harm.

>The very fact that they're already endangered means nothing will be impacted if they go fully extinct.

Retarded statement, a perfect example of an endangered species that will cause impact if it fully becomes extinct is the Blue Whale. Their extinction would cause a significant spike in the krill population which would cause a decrease in Phytoplankton. This will then cause an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because Phytoplankton converts and brings it into the ocean. With the decrease of Phytoplankton there will be more carbon dioxide in he atmosphere.

Two biological systems and one ecological system gets impacted from the extinction of the blue whale.

Now perhaps you meant Extinct in the Wild "EW" species have no impact if they go fully extinct which is technically correct.

Just because life finds a way, it doesn't mean that way will be ideal for the human species in the long-term.

>The very fact that they're already endangered means nothing will be impacted if they go fully extinct.
Brainlet tier reasoning. Humans aren't just another predator naturally killing other animals. When we cause something to go extinct, it can greatly degrade our quality of life and probably permanently ruin the environment we live in. We caused bananas to go extinct and now we have to eat piece of shit knock-off bananas.