Just one won’t impact anything substantial.
Comment on Oh no!!!
arctanthrope@lemmy.world 7 hours agoa neutered animal still consumes resources
HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Reborn_Mormon@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
You’ve written me before. One comment won’t mean much, right? Chaos theory shows how the tinest input at any point can fundamentally change a system. However, people throw around this idea that “we’re in a simulation.” We are not in a simulation; each one of us are our own simulation of a parallel universe reality. The Earth does not exist. We are not featherless bipeds on an Earth, we are pockets of consciousness called monads in a monadic nodal communication system. I believe, in no hubris, that I can expand your perspective. Would you be willing to endure me to learn. The enduring will temper you to be stronger, I tell you, for it is what the CIA did to me, plus you will gain knowledge. My benefit will be to gain perspective of what “normative” is, as I’ve seen you, and I must say you are a good person, I just Know what I Know.
SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 2 hours ago
someone forgot their meds
HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Is this spam?
Signtist@bookwyr.me 7 hours ago
Sure, but then it dies without having children, stopping the resource consumption. It might be delayed, but it’s still a halting force. I’m also confused as to what the issue is - do they have some way of bypassing being neutered?
arctanthrope@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
if you want to remove them from the area entirely because they consume to many resources, why would you go to the trouble of performing surgery and re-releasing it to consume more resources instead of just killing it. the former solves the problem in the future, the latter solves the problem now
NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 6 hours ago
There is some benefit to this in some cases: they compete with the others of their species for the same finite set of resources, causing fewer breeders to make offspring. They might also attempt to breed with a fertile mate (unsuccessfully), causing that mate to never produce offspring when they otherwise would have.
The effectiveness of this is obviously very dependent on the species and their breeding habits, and I know nothing about this one. I’m just talking about the general case.
AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 21 minutes ago
Works for insects.
Signtist@bookwyr.me 7 hours ago
Because a lot of people consider killing an animal to be unethical.
tyler@programming.dev 7 hours ago
No but if you’re going to capture these it’s just a waste to neuter them. The problem is how many other fish have no defenses against them so in effect you’ve done nothing, the lionfish is going to continue killing for the rest of its life. The proper way is to just spearfish them and take them to a restaurant for them to cook for customers. You’ve then both “neutered” them and removed the destruction
Signtist@bookwyr.me 7 hours ago
Well, the reason some people don’t kill them is because they consider it unethical to purposefully stop a life, but besides the 5-15 year offset for lifespan, it’ll still be effective in stopping the problem. The issue with invasive species is that they breed quickly and outcompete the native species due to that factor, but that wouldn’t happen if they prevented the invasive species from breeding. Killing them all or neutering them all barely makes a difference; given a few years, they both result in none remaining.
tyler@programming.dev 2 hours ago
Incorrect. Neutering them will still result in massive loss of life or extinction of species on the reef. Anyone who cares about animals and the reef will kill them, not neuter and rerelease.
anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 hours ago
But you can kill hundreds for the price it costs to neuter a few.