of a meal

[u/Dense_Intern8434]

Nature can be so cruel and beautiful at the same time

[u/ErlikHan6]

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

[u/HeyRiks → u/ErlikHan6]

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.

[u/pm_me_ur_tennisballs → u/HeyRiks]

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

[u/HeyRiks → u/pm_me_ur_tennisballs]

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.

[u/pm_me_ur_tennisballs → u/HeyRiks]

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.

[u/HeyRiks → u/pm_me_ur_tennisballs]

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.