>>153763You're the one pulling excuses out of his ass.
Maybe you should learn more about how ecosystems are preserved. Let's take one of the best and weakest there is: the steppes of Mongolia. Basically, a huge desert, with a thin layer of humus on top.
If let as is, rodents ruin it in record time, and vast green steppes become deserts. So wolves hunt them all year long, and if it's not enough, Mongols lend a hand in the hunt. Wolves also regulate herds and flocks, and Mongols are okay when wolves attack and kill their animals, it means there were just too many in the same area. So they spread out over larger territories, to diminish their presence. If the attacks become too insistent, they hunt wolves to regulate their numbers. But not too much, they need them to kill rodents. Though not that much, rodents, as much as they are responsible for the death of steppes, also contribute quite a lot to it, by burrying and spreading seeds, and producing new, fresh humus with their excrements.
Mongolian steppes is ecosystem 101. It involves plenty deaths of wolves, rodents, sheep and horses, all orchestrated by men, either directly or indirectly. But all of that is needed, or the Gobi desert would cover all of Mongolia.
Nature isn't at a perfect balance. It needs quite a lot of tending, and that involves protection as much as destruction. Which doesn't mean said destruction will kill all of it.
If you just let nature run wild, it may disappear faster than if men were there. This is the hard truth. We're not anymore at the near perfect equilibrium that existed 8000 years ago. If only it was balanced at some point, and hasn't always been in motion.
Deal with it.
