As a physics/chemistry person I have a lot of questions, I hope there are some biologists in the house. I am all for environmental preservation and conservation -- do we know the exact effects of certain bee species becoming extinct? Will it really throw off pollination and ecological equilibrium, or will it be a slight perturbation that nature will promptly rebound from? For example if all X pollinators go extinct, could it not potentially leave room for Y pollinators to grow and effectively "take over the job" or "fill the void".
Somewhat dark, but I imagine there are hundreds, if not thousands, of species that could simply go extinct without permanent "damage" to the biochemical ecosystem. Humans are probably one of those species. For example, what if all red ants went extinct? Would the Earth just be completely screwed? I would guess probably not. My question is what separates a critical species from a non-critical one and how do biologists even determine this effectively?
I know nature does not care about what species live and die; evolution has no "desire" to keep anything alive. But is there really a bottleneck species that, if wiped out, would cause an irreversible phase transition for life as we know it?
> do we know the exact effects of certain bee species becoming extinct?
Not, in most cases.
> For example if all X pollinators go extinct, could it not potentially leave room for Y pollinators
Not. We would enter in an extinction vortex. Less pollinators mean less seeds, less plants, and the empty space would be filled by Y, the species that Y pollinators search for. X would disappear. And we would lose Z, M and Q also. Is the same that happens with companies that lose their main customers. They became less attractive, not more. To be rescued by the fanbase of a competitor suddenly moving in mass to your product is not likely.
> Would the Earth just be completely screwed?
Not, you can't screw the planet, but would be painful (Mess with nature, brace yourself for nasty surprises. Nasty and unfixable). If we take in mind similar events from our past many people would probably die.
I cannot make sense of your second paragraph. It's either badly written, badly argumented or both.
I'll try again. If the metaphor you're choosing is a company losing their clients, then your argument is wrong, because what happens is that the competitor(s) fills the void and the system balances itself.
Why would that not happen in the scenario parent comment proposed? What rule prohibits it?
In ecology there is a concept called extinction vortex. It works very much like a black hole. You pass a non-return point and then the extinction process accelerates suddenly. There is just not time anymore for plans B or C. To escape the gravitational field you need to add lots of energy in the opposite direction. You need, lets say it, a "god's hand intervention"; A few humans that will decide to spend huge amounts of money, time, technology and resources to try to save the day. A struck of luck that worked for Californian Condor or European bison, but failed for Californian porpoise.
> If the metaphor you're choosing is a company losing their clients, then your argument is wrong, because what happens is that the competitor(s) fills the void and the system balances itself.
What you say is exactly what I'm predicting that will happen.
If you wipe an obscure species of mosquitoes, and they pollinate X, in the 99% of the cases X will disappear. Period. There is not time for the other species to fill the gap or for X to adapt. Can survive only by cloning itself. If all mosquitoes were equally equivalent and equally replaceable, we would have room in the planet for one single species, not thousands.
Somewhat dark, but I imagine there are hundreds, if not thousands, of species that could simply go extinct without permanent "damage" to the biochemical ecosystem. Humans are probably one of those species. For example, what if all red ants went extinct? Would the Earth just be completely screwed? I would guess probably not. My question is what separates a critical species from a non-critical one and how do biologists even determine this effectively?
I know nature does not care about what species live and die; evolution has no "desire" to keep anything alive. But is there really a bottleneck species that, if wiped out, would cause an irreversible phase transition for life as we know it?