I can’t feel too proud of our technological advancements. A little virus has shown how it can stop everything. Diseases that were completely eradicated are now coming back as deadly diseases (e.g Dengue). However, that is a separate issue with many pros and cons.
To me this means that a large portion of those who join iNaturalist for nature engagement lose their enthusiasm for nature within a month or two. (Whether anybody will be involved with iNaturalist or not is a completely separate aspect. One can devote time for becoming a singer/actor, one can be busy with software/hardware, one can be a writer/painter or anything else - there is no harm in that. I think there is no obligation that everyone should be engaged with iNaturalist).
I didn’t want to know whether those who are devotedly involved with iNaturalist are ‘better behaved’. I know for sure that the answer to this question is definitely “Yes”.
If I put iNaturalist aside for a while and think about the question-
The theme of the question was “A basic standard/restrictions” should be maintained everywhere (relevant areas), otherwise mass involvement everywhere may destroy the nature.
Should I then assume that the relevant answer to the question stands like this?
For those who are involved dedicatedly with iNaturalist- No
For those who are not involved dedicatedly with iNaturalist- Not Known
Anyway this is my last question. I will not raise any more questions on this topic to keep the thread alive.
Questions and the topic may be grossly ignored. No issues.