this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
357 points (85.2% liked)
Perry Bible Fellowship
631 readers
299 users here now
This is a community dedicated to the webcomic known as the Perry Bible Fellowship, created by Nicholas Gurewitch.
https://www.patreon.com/perryfellow
New comics posted whenever they're posted to the site (rarer nowadays but still ongoing). Old comics posted every day until we're caught up
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How about a third option:
Reintroduce predators that were native to that ecosystem.
If the rampant species has flourished for some time without predators, then they might be less agile in avoiding them, leading to better outcomes.
That's great for people that don't live near these places. Most aren't going to volunteer to have wolves or cougars or whatever reintroduced into their local forest and risk them to run wild through the neighborhood mauling children and pets.
Bears do this in many parts of North America and in general northern latitudes, and people live in harmony.
You're appealing to fear, and the slippery slope here is eradication of all apex predators. That has done absolutely nothing for environmental conservation in the cases where it has happened.
Apex predators can be reintroduced to habitats without direct impacts to humans. Of course there are indirect impacts, like livestock culling, but those pale in comparison to the moral ill of endangering entire species. Imagine if humans were hunted by a more sophisticated apex predators. We'd want to keep our place in the ecosystem.
Typical anthropocentrism at work
slippery slope is literally fallacious reasoning
When does the reasoning stop?
When does this notion that we must eradicate apex predators from environments to protect our welfare and wealth come to a close?
While there is no limit to our empathy, there is also no limit to human ego and enslavement