re: #180 UncleRancher

I’m having a bit of a curiosity attack here. Howcome those most concerned with extinction seem to also be following the evolutionist
dogma. One would think it should be the other way round, with evolution
naturally eliminating those species no longer fit for the environment
and producing new organisms that will more likely survive.

One might think so, but it does make sense whether you believe in evolution or not.

Dramatic changes made to an ecosystem forces many organisms to adapt, migrate, or die. The changes caused by humans are much faster in general than those caused by nature, thus the affected organisms will likely not have time to adapt, much less have time to evolve.

Conversely, when an ecosystem becomes too favorable (also sometimes due to human intervention), a population explosion can damage the carrying capacity of that ecosystem, ultimately resulting in a mass die off.

Finally, Ecologists understand that a diverse ecosystem is inherently more stable while a monoculture more vulnerable to disease epidemics and other problems.

However, many people do not realize that any ecosystem is likely to be changing naturally, and cannot be preserved indefinitely (the natural succession of North American forests comes to mind).

Unfortunately, all of these factors have been hijacked for use as political weapons for the Left (rather than the domain of Conservatives in the true sense of the word). Thus, sadly, there is little true concern for the environment as demonstrated by the ecological disasters in Cuba, Russia, China, and other socialist or former socialist states. I’m sure the same will be true in the USSA (United Socialist States of America) in a few years.

-sk