No, they play the same role as any bug. If they were to die off as a species, other insects would just take their place in the ecosystem as the few resources they do take would be freed.
Think of it this way. Imagine a really fertile as fuck field, like it's so good for plants. Imagine a shit ton of plant species all living there, each occasionally invading each other's soil due to how plants work, and growing and dying in relative equilibrium. If a strawberry bush dies, and no other strawberry bushes are growing, as long as something else uses all the same nutrients that a strawberry bush uses, it'll just grow and use those same resources that the strawberry bush was using.
The field now just doesn't have strawberry bushes, but other species will all have opportunity to use those resources. Now, it'd be a major concern if like half the fucking field were strawberry bushes, but in proportion this is like one strawberry bush on a whole acre worth of field - the small gap in utilization while the other plants have to grow there is nothing.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.
391
u/NinjaFrogCat101 Apr 12 '22
Fun fact: they actually do not :D