Wonder how many smaller bugs went extinct because of artificial lights. Humans activity does quite some damage just out of sheer ignorance and neglect. We need exclusive non-human zones on this planet.
So... don't do it that way. "Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
Counterexample: In permaculture design you intentionally designate part of the site (aka your property) as a wild area called Zone 5.[0]
>Do not touch! Well… kind of. Zone 5 is the “wild child” of all the zones, and one that doesn’t need (and should not have!) any interaction. Do nothing and let nature take its course. Even the smallest permaculture garden should have a zone 5. This zone attracts wildlife, which will encourage diversity and benefit our animals and garden. Zone 5 is a completely wild ecosystem, a great place to observe and learn from nature.
It’s easy to create such zones. We’ve made such zones before. Simply irradiate a large area of land with nuclear radiation and it will be untouched by humans for hundreds or even thousands of years. I imagine this could be a plot for some eco-terrorism thriller novel.
Chernobyl has lots of wildlife, but the animals aren't healthy. Lack of humans good, radioactivity bad.
> Their surveys showed that certain bird species tended to have more genetic mutations, smaller brains and less viable sperm in sites with higher radiation levels. And in 2007, they counted 66 percent fewer birds — and 50 percent fewer bird species — in highly radioactive places compared to background-level sites.
> In dozens of studies, the pair also documented that, with higher radiation levels, there were significantly lower numbers of soil invertebrates and a lower abundance of certain insect species and such mammals as hares and foxes. Working with collaborators in Finland, they also documented a range of health effects in bank voles.
