As the purpose of life is to reproduce, wouldn't that be more important for endangered species if wildlife is on the verge of extinction?
Wouldn't reproduction be more important for endangered species if the depleting population of animals &/or wildlife were to affect (or screw up) the balance of ecosystems or food chain?
- yodiLv 61 month ago
really complex life just emerged in the last half billion. there's a couple of billion years to come
- MikeLv 71 month ago
Raise them on farms
- οικοςLv 71 month ago
Google Leibig's Law of the Minimum. There is always one (rarely more) factor that controls population size. As an analogy, assume that you want to make omelets for your entire family. You have plenty of meat and tons of onions and other vegetables. However, if there are only two eggs in the house, you are going to have to change your plans. To get back to your question, increasing reproduction rate will only raise population levels if that is the controlling factor. However, in almost every instance, extinction in modern times is precipitated by loss of suitable habitat. There ARE cases where captive reproduction has helped but they are rare enough that books have been written about them. The California condor and red wolf come to mind; I can't think of any others.