E.g. Cats kill billions of small birds and mice a year (think what that does to owl populations). It’s shouldn’t be legal to let house cats roam freely outside.
Ok. If there was an abundance of food for the owls then we'd have many, many more owls, and they would kill billions of birds instead. We'd just be sacrificing cats for owls. Why is that better?
Why is it better to introduce hundreds of millions of bored free-range emotional-support predators into any given ecosystem than to not do this?
Seems tone deaf to ask this in a thread about biodiversity and species extinction.
Because there are wayyyy more cats than owls. So we have more biodiversity.
I do not follow. Are you saying that idiocentric tastes negatively correlate with empathy?
What is your measure?
The point is people see world differently because of some fundamental differences in genetics & childhood nurturing.