Beginning from the triassic era, dinosaurs crawled for millions of years. So my basic idea is, that had the dinosaurs not been wiped out, they would have eaten all the flora on the planet then. Because : 1)They (herbivore giants like brachiosaurus, triceratops etc) didn't have any predator. So population growth. 2)they must have had a great requirement of food for one day. (think of an elephant who has to eat a tenth of its way) Doesn't All of this sum up to speak that nature found a way to save the biosphere (then) by extincting them?


closed as primarily opinion-based by kmm, David, canadianer, another 'Homo sapien', Bryan Krause Jul 26 '17 at 0:02

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 9
    $\begingroup$ That's not really how anything works in nature. $\endgroup$ – Bryan Krause Jul 24 '17 at 21:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Speaking in the language of nature, if dinosaurs are fit enough for their environment, they deserve to live as long as they get sufficient food. And if plants and trees can't protect themselves from dinosaurs, they deserve to be eaten up. $\endgroup$ – another 'Homo sapien' Jul 25 '17 at 11:13

Basic misunderstand about how one can make sense of nature

Nature is not a conscient being (or at least not falsifiable conscient being) trying to optimize the amount of flora or whatever you would like to optimize. There is no conscious will in the processes of evolution, in the course of a meteorite or in the decay rate of some radioactive material. Things just happen through causality (and eventually pure randomness when you go to quantum physics), not because there is a wish for this thing to happen.

So, in short no, dinosaurs did not get extinct because someone thought it would be better this way.

This discussion is not a matter of science but of philosophy of science and philosophy of knowledge. You can further this discussion on Philosophy.SE, they will be much better than me at addressing this misunderstanding.

Dinosaurs did not really get extinct

By the way, dinosaurs did not really get extinct as birds are dinosaurs. The number of dinosaurs lineages just suddenly (sudden in terms of geological time at least) decreased.

Loosely related to that, you might want to have a look at the post If dinosaurs could have feathers, would they still be reptiles?

For how long were dinosaurs there?

Dinosaurs (excluding aves, that is the lineage giving rise to modern birds) have roamed the earth from 226 millions years ago to 65 millions years ago (period called the Mesozoic). There is much more time separating the Plateosaurus (late Triassic; ~210 millions years ago) to the Triceratops (late Creaticious; ~68 millions years ago) than between the Triceratops and the first Homo sapiens (~250 thousands years ago). Dinosaurs have been around for long enough so that we can consider that they were not just eating all the plants!

As you assumed that predator population would just grow indefinitely in absence of preys, you might want to have a look at What prevents predator overpopulation?.

  • $\begingroup$ @SiddhantShekhar I just want to bring your attention to an edit in the section For how long were dinosaurs there? to try to help you getting a sense of how long was the so-called "age of dinosaurs". $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Jul 25 '17 at 17:04

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.