Let's vent:What really ticks you off about the pet trade!

[Stefan-A]

I'd like to see that test. I would like to know what they mean by collapse and what they consider an ecosystem, and weather or not they consider an ecosystem with 95% less diversity an equitable one.

Well, ecosystem already has a definition.

You can take 955 of the books out of a library and it would still be a library but would anyone want to visit.

Depends on which books you take and how many it had to begin with. That's the point. Compare the Library of Congress to your local library.

Library of Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[sschind]

Well, ecosystem already has a definition.

Depends on which books you take and how many it had to begin with. That's the point. Compare the Library of Congress to your local library.

Library of Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which definition is that. If you take an ecosystem with 1 million different species and take away 95% that still leaves 50,000 species. That ecosystem will probably survive, but, is that ecosystem as diverse and as stable as the ecosystem that it replaced. Certainly not as diverse and not as likely as stable.

The 995 I typed should have been 95% which I am sure you figured out. The point is, 95% less of anything that is generally considered a good thing is not as good, and diversity, be it in an ecosystem or a library, is generally considered a good thing. Now if that 95% just happened to eliminate all the bad things then I suppose you consider it a good thing but if we expect that th 95% would be applied equally across the board to both good and bad things then that would not be the case (I think you can follow that)

To take it back a bit, what I think you are saying, and I am not trying to put words into your mouth, rather just stating my interpretation of your comments so correct me if I am wrong, is that the extinction of a few species or even a few dozen or even a few hundred or thousand is not going to make a difference. If this is what you are saying then I agree with you 100%. To be perfectly honest I find it to be more than a little extreme that some people will stand in the way of progress to save some subspecies of animal which is more than abundant in other parts of the world. I am talking about progress that will be a benefit to mankind like a windmill farm or solar farm (if those are correct terms) and not just another shopping mall or subdivision.

My point is, and I am not sure how the original post came to this point, is that an ecosystem devoid of 95% of its original makeup is not as desirable as the original. That is my opinion and you can make points that might sway that opinion a bit but unless it is a really compelling argument (like the elimination of disease) then I won't change my mind.

This is a good thread and even though it seems to be leading away from the original intention of the site (Thamnophis) I enjoy discussions like this.

[Stefan-A]

Which definition is that. If you take an ecosystem with 1 million different species and take away 95% that still leaves 50,000 species. That ecosystem will probably survive, but, is that ecosystem as diverse and as stable as the ecosystem that it replaced. Certainly not as diverse and not as likely as stable.

Which is what I said early on.

It's very sensitive to disturbances at that point (which is the real problem), but it should still work.

To take it back a bit, what I think you are saying, and I am not trying to put words into your mouth, rather just stating my interpretation of your comments so correct me if I am wrong, is that the extinction of a few species or even a few dozen or even a few hundred or thousand is not going to make a difference. If this is what you are saying then I agree with you 100%.

Good.

To be perfectly honest I find it to be more than a little extreme that some people will stand in the way of progress to save some subspecies of animal which is more than abundant in other parts of the world. I am talking about progress that will be a benefit to mankind like a windmill farm or solar farm (if those are correct terms) and not just another shopping mall or subdivision.

Depends on your definition of progress.

[infernalis]

To be perfectly honest I find it to be more than a little extreme that some people will stand in the way of progress to save some subspecies of animal which is more than abundant in other parts of the world. I am talking about progress that will be a benefit to mankind like a windmill farm or solar farm (if those are correct terms) and not just another shopping mall or subdivision.

In my opinion here, a solar collector or bank of wind turbines would be a fenced in area, off limits to humans (Except utility workers) so therefore make ideal habitat areas.

We have a large number of "Anti Wind" protesters, they think the turbines are going to be the end of it all

But now we are deviating from the pet trade............

how many animals will I breed? because I want them to go to good homes and not just make money and frankly, I'm not comfortable selling to a store
my babies are mellow and handleable and it's not about the money for me, but the care they'll receive

Rhea, you will always be special to me, salutations and kudos

Money is a powerful motivation to many, just look on the KS classifieds!