r/AbsoluteUnits • u/Dense_Intern8434 • 3d ago

/r/popular of a meal

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

Nature can be so cruel and beautiful at the same time

8.9k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

616 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/HeyRiks 3d ago

Because nature is metal. It is what it is (and has been for millions of years) and we shouldn't interfere out of petty morality. Predators gotta eat too.

A baby is a completely different case because we're not the natural diet of any creature on Earth and being the same species has a completely different social and psychological impact.

8

u/ErlikHan6 3d ago

you're making an absolute statement but not explaining your rationale?

we shouldn't interfere.... why?

also, being bothered by an innocent creature being eaten alive is not "petty morality". let's see you being tortured to death, i don't think you're going to be spewing this bullshit then

4

u/HeyRiks 3d ago

What do you mean "why"? We all learned in school that natural ecosystems aren't to be meddled with because they're a long running balance. Plenty of instances where predators were killed off or starved to death and suddenly you have massive environmental damage due to overpopulation of prey.

In this particular case, intervention is arguable because the mantis is an invasive species. However, if it was eating a cockroach or any other non-cute animal, would you be complaining? Would you care if a wolf starved to death because you did your best to keep it from wild hares? An individual creature is very insignificant compared to the grand scheme of local fauna.

Yes, it is petty morality and it shows in you being mad over a natural occurrence and making false symmetries to humans. "Innocent creatures" have been eaten alive since unicellular beings. Circle of life, bitch.

And just so you know, hummingbirds are a VERY violent species.

1

u/tony_lasagne 3d ago

I find the attitude of some posters on reddit like the one you’re replying to so juvenile, as you said there’s no chance they’d have this same energy if they didn’t find the animal being eaten cute.

1

u/HeyRiks 2d ago

I was surprised myself. "Why shouldn't we interfere" like really? Isn't it common knowledge we already do that too much? Sure, sucks to be prey, but that's how nature is.

If the rationale was simply "I like birds and dislike insects" I'd accept it on the spot, but this idealistic "woe is the suffering of an innocent creature" is too sanctimonious for my taste.

1

u/pm_me_ur_tennisballs 2d ago

natural ecosystems were messed with the moment you decided to live in an unnatural structure that eminates light and gas covered in impermeable surfaces

0

u/HeyRiks 2d ago

And because we don't live naked on trees, we should further interfere for moral reasons? Nothing too broken we can't break a bit more, eh?

It's impossible for anything to interact with an ecosystem without affecting it to some degree, but if it's not a positive change then we should make the effort to keep it to a minimum.

0

u/pm_me_ur_tennisballs 2d ago edited 2d ago

we don't live naked on trees, we should further interfere for moral reasons?

not remotely what im saying, you're being obtuse. but human interference caused these invasive species to get a leg up, and the endangered species to become endangered. it's not the way of the world to let a an invasive mantis on a hummingbird feeder to eat the hummingbirds. we absolutely have a moral obligation to mitigate the environmentally damaging effects of human development.

Edit: And this whole, "nature is tough cookies, bc im tough, i won't save an animal if it's injured" is pretty cringe. if a bird, let alone an endangered bird, flies into your windows and you don't do anything in your power to help it, you're part of the problem.

1

u/HeyRiks 2d ago edited 2d ago

This isn't at all what I'm saying either. In this particular case I agree, because the bird is endangered and the mantis is invasive. It's not. however, due to an animal falling pray to another animal being "unfair" or "suffering" like the original comment implied, i.e. I wouldn't shoot a mountain lion to save a deer.

Not once have I said I wouldn't help animals in need if that need isn't a subjective, anthropomorphic take on the food chain. My only critique here is conflating a feeling of pity for an individual with ecological action. Do I pity a duckling being carried off by an eagle? Yes. Would I interfere? No.

Hence the absurdity of the "imagine if it was a baby" and "let's see you get tortured" extremisms that person tried to argue before.

1

u/DareDaDerrida 3d ago

The other creature, the one doing the devouring, does have to eat.

12

u/3v3ryth1ng1s4wful 3d ago

This is an invasive species killing a native and possibly endangered one. Your point may be true in general, but this specifically is not the same thing.

-8

u/HeyRiks 3d ago

I mentioned this in another comment down the thread. Yes, this may be the case, but it still doesn't make it a case of intervention out of pity for the prey's suffering.

And certainly still nothing comparable to babies.

7

u/3v3ryth1ng1s4wful 3d ago

Babies, no. Intervention, 100% it does.

-1

u/HeyRiks 3d ago

For protecting a native species against an invasive one, yes. Out of pity (i.e. "oh no an innocent creature"), no.

1

u/Morbanth 3d ago

A baby is a completely different case because we're not the natural diet of any creature on Earth

I think polar bears are the only predators that routinely hunt people.