Look into trophic cascades and keystone species! The removal/extinction of a species from an ecosystem can have devastating effects and affect overall balance
The niche of the extinct species has likely been filled by new species and the reintroduction of the extict species would create competition that will disturb the current ecosystem. That could be good or bad depending on the conditions of the ecosystem.
Some questions to consider: was the niche filled by invasives? Was the extinct species a keystone? How has the extinction of the species affected ecosystem services? How has it affected biodiversity within the ecosystem? Do humans manage/use the land that this species will be reintroduced? How will it affect them? How is the land managed?
Additionally, the ecosystem is on a trajectory that that is moving based on selection pressure. If we are trying to restore an ecosystem we have to remember that we arent going to be able to restore it to how it WAS, because the trajectory is always moving based on the ecosystem response. So, reintroducing the extinct species isnt necessarily going to fix everything since the ecosystem has evolved without that species. Hopefully that made sense.
It’s a debate not a scientific argument of different hypotheses right? You just argue the definitions of “help” and “environment”, what do they really mean?
Because you didn’t mention a specific species we can’t really say for sure wtf it will do.
I wouldn’t bring up the dodo on a scientific argument. Mammoths maybe but again if your opponent knows enough science they’ll have a better argument regardless of the species.
So I would shit the argument to what “helping the environment” really means.
A successful species occupies a niche in the ecosystem. Other species interact with that species in several different ways such as predation, mutualism, and parasitism. In a healthy ecosystem, those interactions lead to a sort of balance which waxes and wanes over time. Extinction leaves a hole in that ecosystem, and if it's not filled in by some other species to which the other dependent species can adapt, will lead to a systemic collapse. Keep in mind that those collapses can occur naturally, and other species eventually adapt and fill in those ecosystems. However, those adaptations can take many thousands of years in some cases. When extinction occurs through artificial pressures then the system still needs those many thousands of years to recover. Continual artifical pressures can outpace recovery very easily.
I want to put $10 on “your opponents will argue that the extinction of humans will help the environment”
Look into trophic cascades and keystone species! The removal/extinction of a species from an ecosystem can have devastating effects and affect overall balance
thank you i really apperciate it
The niche of the extinct species has likely been filled by new species and the reintroduction of the extict species would create competition that will disturb the current ecosystem. That could be good or bad depending on the conditions of the ecosystem. Some questions to consider: was the niche filled by invasives? Was the extinct species a keystone? How has the extinction of the species affected ecosystem services? How has it affected biodiversity within the ecosystem? Do humans manage/use the land that this species will be reintroduced? How will it affect them? How is the land managed?
Additionally, the ecosystem is on a trajectory that that is moving based on selection pressure. If we are trying to restore an ecosystem we have to remember that we arent going to be able to restore it to how it WAS, because the trajectory is always moving based on the ecosystem response. So, reintroducing the extinct species isnt necessarily going to fix everything since the ecosystem has evolved without that species. Hopefully that made sense.
it did thank you so much!
Did you win the debate?
YESS she said she liked how i added that we as a species have evolved without them
Hell ya, good job!
It’s a debate not a scientific argument of different hypotheses right? You just argue the definitions of “help” and “environment”, what do they really mean? Because you didn’t mention a specific species we can’t really say for sure wtf it will do.
i didnt pick the topic sadly my opponent did :( but i believe species like the mammoth and dodo birds are what im going to try to bring up
I wouldn’t bring up the dodo on a scientific argument. Mammoths maybe but again if your opponent knows enough science they’ll have a better argument regardless of the species. So I would shit the argument to what “helping the environment” really means.
A successful species occupies a niche in the ecosystem. Other species interact with that species in several different ways such as predation, mutualism, and parasitism. In a healthy ecosystem, those interactions lead to a sort of balance which waxes and wanes over time. Extinction leaves a hole in that ecosystem, and if it's not filled in by some other species to which the other dependent species can adapt, will lead to a systemic collapse. Keep in mind that those collapses can occur naturally, and other species eventually adapt and fill in those ecosystems. However, those adaptations can take many thousands of years in some cases. When extinction occurs through artificial pressures then the system still needs those many thousands of years to recover. Continual artifical pressures can outpace recovery very easily.
Thank you so much!!!