Nature's capacity to 'bounce back' when species are lost is overestimated: study
New research suggests nature’s ability to recover from species loss has been significantly overestimated, especially on human timescales and in heavily altered ecosystems. Commenters debate the limits of “bouncing back,” citing overfished cod stocks, logged forests, and prairie remnants that never fully regain their original complexity, and argue that biodiversity underpins ecosystem resilience and human well-being. The conversation also probes moral questions around deliberately eradicating harmful species, the reliability and limits of ecological models, and whether conservation should be justified in terms of planetary health or human self-interest.
Timescales and “Bounce Back”
- Many commenters assumed “bounce back” only makes sense on geological timescales (thousands to millions of years), not human lifetimes.
- Several argue Earth’s history shows constant flux and repeated regime shifts, not a stable baseline to return to.
- Others note that even recovery over a few thousand years is still effectively a permanent loss for humans.
Eradicating Mosquitoes and Targeted Extinction
- Strong support from some for eliminating disease‑carrying mosquitoes, citing human suffering and existing tools (e.g., Wolbachia).
- Counterpoints: concern about food-web impacts; others reply there are thousands of mosquito species and removing a subset might have minimal ecological cost.
- This leads to a broader question: why are some species seen as acceptable to eradicate (e.g., parasites) and others not?
Restoration, Collapse, and Irreversibility
- Practitioners of stream and forest restoration report that rebuilding habitat often does not bring original species back; source populations are gone.
- Examples: cod fisheries that stabilized at much lower abundance, logged forests and prairies that remain less diverse even after a century, and “remnants” vs restorations where many specialist insects never return.
- Several argue that once certain species or old-growth systems are lost, true baseline conditions are effectively unrecoverable.
Human-Centered vs Intrinsic Value
- One camp: saving species is largely about human self‑interest (ecosystem services, stable climate, future generations).
- Another emphasizes intrinsic value of biodiversity and regards mass extinction (including human extinction) as a profound loss of complexity and consciousness.
- Nihilistic views also appear, claiming that on cosmic scales none of this matters.
Models, Equilibrium, and Systems Thinking
- Long subthread challenges the idea of “natural equilibrium,” tracing it to imported system theories and noting multiple or unstable equilibria.
- Others defend models as useful but limited tools, stressing predictive power and awareness of failure modes.
- There is criticism of overreliance on abstract models in ecology and economics, and of policy built on oversimplified equilibrium narratives.
Policy, Geoengineering, and What to Do
- Some reference global biodiversity frameworks and rewilding as necessary even if imperfect.
- Others see targets (e.g., large-scale restoration by 2030) as politically unrealistic or vague.
- Geoengineering ideas (greening deserts, carbon sequestration) are debated, with worries about unpredictable knock‑on effects and lack of collective will.