Came here to say the same thing

Unless it's like Starburst in the UK where they're made without gelatin.

Also something something Beyond Burger animal testing.

Thank you, this was helpfully thought-terminating.

I suppose if you magnify it so far, but that's seems semantic ultimately.

Certainly a great deal of damage is the excess and inefficiency of global capitalism. With the tenants of central planning we wouldn't need to exploit nearly as much land and resources if we consumed only as much as necessary. But if growth is an endless goal even under communism, why worry about conserving anything now? At some point growth has to be checked, or nature has to be sacrificed.

There's also an argument to be made of over correcting or too much deliberation. If we're always focused on conserving an ecosystem at a chosen level, won't it ultimately stagnate? At what point does the Earth just become a global zoo? When do we pull back and allow systems to change like they always have?

Yes that's exactly right. Not all invasive species are a result of human fuckery (speaking outside of the scope of this particular article) and is literally natural. Extinction is natural. Ecosystem upheaval is natural. Why is your human ego and feelings for one species important here?

And you don't even understand the irony. Sure on a macro level rock stacking is likely inconsequential most times, but you have no consideration to the micro ecosystems you're upheaving because they're out of sight. How many bacteria have you caused to go extinct? Lmao I don't even care that badly about rock stacking I just thought it was a silly insult.

Life on Earth existed for hundreds of millions of years before human industrialisation, why are we so necessary to it's continuation? Why isn't withdrawing to a certain extent an option? Sounds like you're arguing for the contradiction of infinite growth like a good capitalist.

Very colonizer-brained. We certainly can delineate ourselves to a certain degree. At what scope have we tried leaving well enough alone for nature to run its course? Human "wisdom" has caused untold damage, what makes you so certain that same wisdom is what's best?

And this isn't a call for humanity to stop progressing or anything(though maybe....) just that well intentioned conservation seems short sighted and self serving. I'm not convinced our intervention is what will halt the decay.

~~removing~~ eating kudzu instead.

And what happens when this intervention causes new unforeseen consequences? How many disruptions until we leave well enough alone?

We don't live in nature. We literally live in a human society. Rights do apply to us within our own realm lmao.

Edit: You probably stack rocks.

I don't fully agree. Extinction can be natural, what right do humans have to intervene in this? Just because conservation makes us feel nice?

Each situation is extremely intricate of course, so maybe this is the right choice in this instance, such as preventing a larger impact to a local ecosystem, or if the barred owls were introduced directly unnaturally. But direct human intervention should always be greatly scrutinized. We already do enough damage indirectly from exploiting global resources.

Wtf do all owls look the same to you??

You do not, under any circumstances, "gotta hand it them".

Some of us girls use it, too