You have made yourself perfectly clear. If you want to share something, simply post it along with your arguments.
You don't need to discus with others. But try to stay open for any reasonable explanation.
I feel terrible sometimes about what people do. Not getting back as far as the last ice age. But our presence is causing extinction. Every but since
we started the industrial age the number species that go extinct every decade gets higher. The last century is filled with animals we know for sure,
existed. We got to see the last specimens and documented it. The more you get closer to the 60 of last century the more extinction is taking place.
I have created a thread once about that exact topic. I'll link you to it. I tried to add pictures of species and show our part in their demise. I
started with the last ice age, to show the undeniable link we have in the process.
The shocking reality of modern day extinction.
To answer your question.
There is lots of krill around, since we emptied the seas from most of the animals that eat krill. I expect there will be a lot more around of the
stuff you can imagine.
I do believe we shouldn't start to simply start to take a step down on the food scale and fish it out as fast we can.
Horrible results have showed us what happens if you keep on catching everything you can everywhere possible.
Empty seas. We now prohibit large parts to remain protected, so the fish can be safe there and will populate the sea around. But we are a late and
still need more to feed the people.
It would be better if we would leave krill alone and try to create the fish to increase in numbers.
The Holocene extinction event isn't just an event. Scientists have already said that the loss of species are numbers that would only be seen at a
mass extinction in such a short period of time.
Luckily we also keep finding life at extraordinary numbers and places. But it doesn't mean we just pretend that it's isn't that bad. Like you
said, if you change something by removing or replacing species. It could end up with less variety and an empty woods.
We should protect our natural world, because the less variety there is, the more risk this creates if there really happened something that would
cause extinction on a bigger scale. It makes it difficult to recover if there isn't anything left to start with.
I say that we have responsibility to our planet that we keep it as healthy as we can. If we can, we should prevent any more species lose their
habitat to our needs.
In the end, my world ends in roughly estimate before the end of this century. Way before even. That is our problem. We don't care and let our
problems get even bigger for future generations. Eventually we die and we want to have it all. Well some, more then most.
There should be a balance that sustains our needs and the natural world. Is not going to happen soon.
The last remaining people living a balanced life got almost wiped out in America and adapt to our ways in Australia.
Anyway... I shared way to much for just one question. But I feel the same thing you feel, not bringing it up when possible.