I think a better example would be the near-extinction of the American bison in the late 19th century.
In game terms, EVE benefits from a healthy level of ganking. The problem is, maintaining that healthy level depends on prudence and self-regulation among the ganker community. When petty self-interest takes precedence, that’s when things start to break down.
So it’s been, what… about a decade now since this has been the modus operandi? 
New players have no right to exist.
Wow…unsure if you’re serious or just roleplaying… 
I’m confused why you carebears want new players.
What benefit do they provide??
The continuation of this game when you and I are gone.
Hopefully anyway.
You have to destroy the new player in order to save the new player.
Or maybe we have to save the new player to preserve the ganker…
Anyways, I’m gonna keep shooting them.
So, you can either start antiganking, or just sit in the forums complaining about it.
Your move!
I inquired about the diplomatic route - awaiting details…
So the real trick is
Then it doesn’t matter how many eggs you have in how many baskets.
I agree.
And I think many others will agree too, until we define what a ‘healthy level of ganking’ is.
I suspect people have very different opinions on that!
From some posts here on the forums I get the feeling that some people seem to think that ‘a healthy level of ganking’ is zero, is near zero or is always just a little less than it is now.
Those people too would agree with your statement.
I personally think a healthy level of ganking is very different and significantly higher: a range up to the point that any gameplay activity is still profitable on average, provided that the player plays well.
What I mean by that is that mining should be possible and profitable on average, so that for most players your loss today is covered by profits of other days and that you still end up positive, because otherwise there’s no point in undocking to mine. And likewise for any other activity in space.
Of course some people would skew these averages I mentioned by flying overloaded freighters AFK or mining in blinged Exhumers without paying attention. Such strategies do not need to be profitable on average if you ask me. It’s nice if you succeed (and perhaps a sign that the ganking level is unhealthy low?) but if you fail that’s not a ganking issue, but a user error. Hence the disclaimer: “provided that the player plays well” in my definition, only if even the good strategies aren’t profitable is there a problem.
There also are people who don’t dare to undock if there is any risk at all, even if their gameplay would be profitable taking into account losses. That’s their issue of doing bad risk assessment, not a problem of the game.
Long story short, as long as enough bison are undocking and are profitably playing the game, I think the ganking level is not ‘too high’.
A bit of risk keeps the universe interesting, rewards smart fitting of and smart flying of ships, and keeps activities profitable. Risk is a good thing for the game.
A healthy level of ganking is zero. Let me preface this by saying I don’t mean zero criminal activity. I think we should have crime with viable counterplay.
What, exactly, does overhaul mean for each of these?
Ganking already is a criminal act!
Without going into details (on my mobile, my typing sucks), basically just what it indicates. As an example, high-sec wars went from oppressive to basically non-existent. We’re still waiting on an overhaul to bounties.
Yes, I travel through it with caution. As my hauling alt has been through when the dead ship count is high. A salvage team could make some pocket isk after some of those skirmishes. Everyone seems focused to run on the weekends, I ran a few haulers through there in the last 2 hours before server reset. Seems quiet for now.
It is a basic choke point. Good strategy in any wargame to channel your targets into a narrow passage to ambush them. I am not one to set up as a sniper in CoD, I find it boring, I am the assault troop on the front lines, or special ops to sneaking through the line and sabotage them from behind.
I am pretty sure you really don’t mean it. ALL PvP games have this “revolving door” on the scrubs. They either take the heat or get out of the kitchen. That statement would be like saying you want EVE to shutdown from shear lack of new player rotation or are you here just to destroy your game?
That topic went all over the place. Thanks for the advice people. I will be running my stuff to sell in Jita and Amarr. Gankers stay frosty and you may get a chance at one my many loads.
Yes, I would replace it with something different. Expanded (overhaul) high-sec wars, for example.
Sure, but as long as characters (like my hauling alt) can be war-immune such a change to replace ganks by war mechanics would mean those characters (including my hauling alt) become PvP immune.
PvP-immunity obviously is an unwanted situation that allows profitable activities to be entirely risk-free, such as transport of billions or even trillions in an AFK ship on autopilot amongst other problems.
Or are you suggesting ‘war immunity’ is also a thing that should be removed? I would not be against such a change.
That’s exactly what I’m suggesting.