Yes. Tell me again angsty 12 year old, arm chair Hobbesian philosopher, PETA “greenpeacer” etc. tell me about how humans are the only animal so destructive of its surroundings, the only animals that cause such widespread suffering and destruction for our own gain. Then realize that a group of humans may burn acres of forest for a farm to feed thousands for years, and this little bastard will cause an uncontrolled wildfire to get a snack for himself. Me thinks nature is often romanticized.
I think some of the key things here are "australia" and "existing bushfire"
We don't have stuff like the Amazon. We have pyrophytic plants that are used to this sort of stuff.
The hark didn’t wake up one day and started setting fires for no reason, and there are plant species that depend on wildfires to spread their seeds. If the hawk was starting as many fires as possible for no reason other than to look for gold to build a golden nest on a tree, I’d be on your side of the argument
People don’t look for good for no reason. People look for gold because to us it is interchangeable for food, shelter, safety, comfort, social order. Plants seeds evolved to to germinate under extreme heat because it was a successful adaptation to allow their offspring to survive fire and grow up with little competition for resources. Humans evolved our technology faster than the rest of the ecosystem could adapt. The hawk starts fires. Destructive deadly fires, to make hunting easier. It doesn’t NEED to. Lots of birds of prey hunt without fire. An ancestor put the pieces together that setting fire was easier. Humans put the pieces together that giving a guy gold to raise your dinner was easier than doing it yourself.
We don't have stuff like the Amazon. We have pyrophytic plants that are used to this sort of stuff.