This is a point which I was thinking about earlier in the semester. How do conservationist make these tough calls? I understand that walking the line of smart conservation and an attempt to save everything is tough, and judgement calls must ultimately be made to protect what is both most threatened, and most needed for the preservation of the ecosystem and its niches. But that judgement call must be tough to make knowing it could possibly mean the sabotage of some other species.

Seeing how conservation and the fundamental concept of rights go hand in hand is, for lack of a better term, interesting. These two concepts, to me anyway, are one in the same; with each acting in a similar function to ensure the growth and development of either the ecosystem or the people.

This statement feels somewhat dangerous and blames those who may not have the resources to do anything about these issues as bigger companies move in and take over political movements. An example of this would be the formation of the "Banana Republics" in which 3 massive fruit companies were able to ostensibly take control of parts of Central and South America by buying up smaller plantations and becoming lobbyists for local governments and the United States government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgydTdThoeA&t=298s This video has a good recap of how this went down, just a heads up it may or may not be a bit vulgar.

How is this determined? It is often a similar point or is it calculated some other way.

This seems like a catch 22, on the one hand protection aids and creates biodiversity, then eventually biodiversity becomes dependent on the protections, so if those are removed then biodiversity will fail. On the other, without these protections biodiversity is on the brink of destruction.

This makes sense, as a smaller may lead to less resources and the possibility for an increased rate of competition within populations.

This statistic is mind boggling, just thinking that a species only survives for a few generations.

Are there any other conditions where a fire regime would change aside from an invasive plant species establishing themselves?

This figure just emphasizes to me how important forests are when it comes to the preservation and holding of carbon.

Up until this point, I thought that the coral polyps were the organisms that provided the coloration of the coral not the algae with which the coral forms a mutualistic relationship. This being the case, now I understand better why bleaching is so detrimental to the reef as a whole and not just the individual pieces of coral and it's polyps.

Normally when I think about invasive species, outright aggression and competition for survival in an ecological niche is not one of the factors that comes to mind.

I could not comprehend the fact that deforestation and selling of lumber is the most beneficial way for certain populations to actually make a living. Quite frankly this is a prime example of how a population in a lower economic standing ultimately is detrimental to the environment.

This is much lower than I originally thought we had left. Yet when taking into the events of "manifest destiny", in which settlers slaughtered their way through local animal and indigenous populations, which would have preserved these ecosystems.

This concept does not surprise me in the slightest. I can also imagine what kind of ripple effects that this practice may have on local human populations and ecosystems. Seeing as these larger companies will deforest and tear apart ecosystems just for the slightest bit of profit. Also, theoretically, this could force people to move to areas where they would be able to make a living.

It is truly interesting to think that there are species that have existed, or do still exist that are unknown to science.

I had a somewhat similar thought, as reading the utilitarian statement of "the greatest good to the greatest number for the longest time" makes it feel as though this is being done out of obligation as opposed to a want for what is best for the ecological niches. On top of this the preservationist ideals were the spiritual connection and aesthetics of nature, which are ultimately human pleasures.