This was a thoroughly researched paper.

But… is this supposed to be revelatory or just a contribution in assisting established confirmation? This isn’t meant as a rude or snobby question. I only read the paper, and not the embedded peer review link.

Because what I mean is that this is kind of common sense in Conservation discussions. The formation of clusters and parallel predation aid in achieving trophic balance. That is just common knowledge to me and the people in my circles of discussion. Nobody even thinks otherwise. It’s like biomagnification, it’s just part of the thought process in trophic exchange and balance.

The overarching and compelling discussion that emerged in Conservation was in the introduction of predators to amplify biodiversity or to correct population explosion of a specific species. The greater discussion in Conservation is not about if it works, because it does achieve both of those goals. It does achieve niche clustering. In magnitude. The greater discussion itself is in quality of life of the Fauna afterwards. Some people over the years have started to refer to this as “Wild Animal Rights”. Very often in acts of Conservation, the introduction of predators is a common practice, but it is now contested by fellow conservationists as an unethical proposition.

I know this is not the focus or the intention of the paper. So, we are (I am) sidestepping into a different abstract. But it is inevitable for me to ask as to what is the intention of this paper after being received. As I do agree with everything in the paper as a logical stance and as proof of it. My only rebuttal is in which direction are we to take this information afterwards?

Because biodiversity=good is not a clean cut affirmation that some like to claim. Even in Flora where is much easier to make that statement, one has to contend with invasive species as an undesired outcome of it. In Fauna, the quality of life has to be submitted as a factor in consideration in intervention.

Quick example: In the Yellowstone Park, the reintroduction of wolves, led to increase in biodiversity, and niche clustering was definitely found to occur. The case was considered on the surface as a success by many, as more species of everything including in the rivers was found after this (Human) intervention.

But… when investigating it closely, many of the species already there were found to have a decline in quality of life. Including the deer population which were now starving in fear of crossing the river and moving to places where they once fed, by the inflicted trauma of having witnessed the evisceration of some members of their population. Now they rather starve, just in fear of the same outcome. This is just one quick example in one place of many to be found if you desire to do so.

Geologists have confirmed that when Fauna emerged as a new form of life in our biosphere, species extinction of Flora and subsequently Fauna started to occur at a much faster rate and exponentially so. And mass extinctions coalesce with drastic climate change. Obviously.

All animals in Fauna, (including us, unfortunately), don’t possess self-regulation as a characteristic. This was what led to the initial predation systems in Fauna. Predators emerged from their owned induced scarcity, and parallel predation surged as a natural progression.

Even in a meta-zoology study, it was proven that carnivore animals are much more likely to develop cancer. And this can be easily established as another necessary feature in population control in larger predators. After all, if other animals cannot contain their numbers as they do to other species, another property has to emerge to prevent their own induced scarcity and even the extinction of other species in the process. Cancer is a good population control occurrence. Just like viruses are.

The problem with us as a species is that we are devising our own scarcity and driving species extinction because we resist all natural forms of population control. From predation, to cancer and even viruses and bacteria. And without possessing self-regulation, we are not only doomed to repeat what initiated predation in Fauna, but to commit it at a level that is unprecedented.

You can even see that human based conflicts also emerge from this. Without self-regulation as individuals and as a species, we devise resource collapse and start preying on each other as a result in scarcity becomes a source of conflict. From an athropological assessment this is a never ending loop in human behaviour. But it is just a feature in the design of all Fauna. If we ever develop a true capacity for self-regulation we would have for the first time proven to be special as many of us think we are. Which so far, we have not proven to be.

All societal issues lead back to this flaw in our design as members of Fauna. Survival instinct including procreation, plus pleasure seeking behaviours minus self-regulation equals the same outcome found in all Fauna. This simple equation of factors is our design. The same as in all other animals.

And we need to correct it, or face our role in the the inevitability of it in the entropy of biology in the biosphere.

Tangent aside, and going back to the paper, we need to have all this in mind when interpreting or using its’ information.

Especially when we deem ourselves as deserving “interventionists” meddling with what we have not mastered in ourselves.