this post was submitted on 01 May 2022
15 points (94.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43856 readers
1784 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Narrow aesthetic interpretations impacting conservation efforts. Why should people love butterflies more than beetles? Why prioritize 'cute' mammals over the vastly more important but abstract notion of biodiversity of insects and worms and other arthropods?
In a country I used to live in, there was a very passionate conservation group for trying to preserve wild horses which were a human-introduced species and massively destroying habitats. I'm not seeing much business motivation so I assume it's just 'we need to protect the cute animal' despite it (unintentionally) killing many more cute and threatened animals.