Endangered species - does it matter?

[silverfox]

We are told that the world is at a tipping point with many animals threatened with imminent extinction.

Polar bears are mentioned in today's papers along with ivory gulls, Pacific walruses, ringed and hooded seals and narwhals, small whales with long, spiral tusks. These can be added to elephants, white rhinos, tigers, panda bears and so on.

My question is, objectively, does it really matter? Emotional considerations aside, isn't it the natural order of things that species die out and others emerge? Dinosaurs disappeared as did some 70% of all life on the planet, we're told, after some cataclysmic event 60 million years ago. Humankind may not have emerged on this planet if many species hadn't disappeared.

I realise it will be a great loss that some, if not all, of these species disappear and we should do everything we can to prevent their demise by our actions. But it's doubtful that we can really save them, except for a few in well-protected zones or nature parks.

Some, like bees, which have a critical role in keeping our food chain going, and hence our very survival, must be protected at all costs. Similarly with types of fish that we, humans, rely on for food. We must do our utmost to preserve these animals and insects and also plants, using seed banks, and trees for fruit and oxygen, that are necessary for the survival of the human race. Other animals and plants, which merely look pretty or cute, are probably dispensible.

[RoosterMcLooster]

Isn't the bigger issue more about the causes of decline of species. Yes it would be terribly sad if there were no polar bears in the wild but the cause is the loss of the polar ice-caps which would be catastrophic in terms of the survival of the global ecosystem as a whole.

I am not sure that any animals are 'dispensable' (except perhaps the urocyon cinereoargenteus). Our ecosystem is almost infinitely complex and therefore the impact of allowing certain species to die out might have huge and unexpected consequences. No polar bears might mean more seal meat for killer whales which then take over the oceans and cripple global trade etc

[daizie]

hence, the sooner human beings die out the better ..

[silverfox]

(urocyon cinereoargenteus = Gray Foxes I had to look that up)

[Brendan]

Well there are a few points.

1 - Will life on earth care in the long run? No probably not. It will carry on and evolve new species long after other (like ourselves) have become extinct. We are pretty good at killing things but not that good.

2 - Should we only protect the species that we need? Well no, the thing with eco systems is that they are systems and hugely complicated at that. No species exists in isolation and if one goes there will always be a knock on effect on others.

3 ? Should it matter to us as people? Well should and shouldn?t are difficult terms to pin down. But on the emotive human side of it I think most people want to maintain as much of the natural world as possible. Because it?s nice and nice is important.

[vinceayre]

I read somewhere that 99% of everything that has lived on this planet is extinct.

I think we have very little influence in these things but just like doing something to make us feel as if we do.

Vince

[mockney piers]

Tricky one.

On the one hand life has survived much direr circumstances than those we are ushering in, but that doesn't necessarily do us, the polar bear or even the grey fox, whoever he is, any good.

It's a tad arrogant of us to believe (and it's very implicit in the question) that we matter more or even less than other species. But then we do have awareness so I suppose as we realise that species are becoming extinct as an indirect result of our actions (I guess in a weird way direct is more acceptable, such as outperforming rival hominid species etc) that maybe we really ought to do something about it.

Mind you whilst we're being all roman and stuff can I nominate the vespula vulgaris for extermination, no ecosystem could possibly benefit from the little bully can it?

[Brendan]

Best get rid of them now before they evolve opposable thumbs ?cos then we will be really screwed.

[HAL9000]

The irony is that whatever species we manage to save today will probably be eaten by our descendants during man?s last stand against extinction.

[Robyn0312]

From a geological perpective we are a tiny insignificant blip. To be honest, from a scientific and not cynical point of view it would literally do the world of good if we did go extinct.

Whilst I would say that species are not dispensible I don't think it matters how, when and how many species do go extinct the earth will recover.

We have already undergone several mass-extinction events - the end permian mass extinction event, the largest event known of lead to the extinction of 99% of all global species. Importantly this was also through gradual decline associated with climatic change and anoxic ocean events. Numerous other less dramatic events have also occured.

However, it does matter to ensure the longevity of our own species, if we do nothing about these issues then we are effectively surrendering our effective survival. Although I'm also of the view that before it would get to this point disease, food issues and associated wars will reduce the human population back to a level which will be more sustainable alongside the natural environment.

[Santerme]

I recall the ominous quote attributed to Albert Einstein: "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man."

Climate change and Global Warming are probably the paramount issues of our times.

I am also reminded of Schopenhauer who said, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

I listened to a young girl of 13 give a talk on the kind future we are creating for her and her peers.

She is also worth quoting:

"If you don't know how to fix it then stop breaking it"

[HAL9000]

Santerme Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I recall the ominous quote attributed to Albert Einstein:

The attribute is almost certainly false. See Snopes: Einstein on Bees

> "If the bee disappeared off the surface

> of the globe, then man would only have four years

> of life left.

That statement is certainly false.

Bees are not the sole pollinators of food crops.

Many food crops do not require pollination (either by bees or at all).

Some agricultural products would no longer be viable: Bee Pollinated Crops

Alternative crops would soon take their place.

> No more bees, no more pollination,

> no more plants, no more animals, no more man.

The sudden disappearance of bees would lead to short-term food shortages and the collapse of many agricultural ventures but not necessarily to the extinction of mankind or all other terrestrial life on the planet.

> Climate change and Global Warming are probably the

> paramount issues of our times.

Agreed (but note that 'Climate Change' and 'Global Warming' are one and the same issue).

[iaineasy]

I listened to a young girl of 13 give a talk on the kind future we are creating for her and her peers.

She is also worth quoting:

"If you don't know how to fix it then stop breaking it"

-----------------------------------

I saved that speech to my you tube favourites, I thought it was very powerful and the girl was very eloquent.

here's the link if anyone is interested.

hugs

[SteveT]

Endangered species becoming extinct is most important, as it suggests we are living beyond our means, taking far too many

resources from a very finite planet.

We are all in the same queue, alongside or behind the rest of the species waiting to go under.

We (mankind) would have to radically change our breeding habits to make any significant difference.

No politician that I'm aware of would tackle such a burden.

[Brendan]

It is very true and a very difficult question. I have a good friend who is a catholic priest. He is an intelligent well educated man but, because of his belief (or indoctrination) he swears blind that no matter how many people are produced, the world can support them because god said it will be so.

To the rational mind this is obviously rubbish but it gives those who choose to believe it a convenient little happy place to go to when they don?t want to face up to the really difficult questions.

Anyway, basically it leaves the rest of us asking, would we rather die out as a species or live in a world where everything is so controlled that even every one of our sperm have to be accounted for?

Hopefully neither will happen and there will just be a population peak followed by a crash with a new, hopefully better, society emerging from the other side.

Or maybe we?re all fucked.

[HAL9000]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... a catholic priest. ...

> Hopefully ... there will just be a population

> peak followed by a crash with a new, hopefully

> better, society emerging from the other side.

There's an ironic convergence of beliefs here: Catholics believe in a population peak followed by an End of Times crash with a new, better Kingdom to Come emerging from the other side.

I do sometimes wonder whether the ancients knew something that we don't?

[mockney piers]

Creating a congruence between vague ideas is incredibly easy.

The ancients knew far better than we about the vagaries of famine, pestilence, war and plague, doesnt mean they had the foggiest about global warming, dwinding resources (in the wider sense, how could they iagine that when they were at the mercy of dwindling resources in an annual sense) and overpopulation.

Their experience and ours are very different, just because they could write down in a book pessimistic notions doesnt mean they had some divine led insight into the challenges that face us today.

Coincidence, causality and hindsight often often make convenient yet ultimately uneasy bedfellows ;)

[HAL9000]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Coincidence, causality and hindsight often make

> convenient yet ultimately uneasy bedfellows ;)

Whatever bakes your cake. For me, retro-causality, relativistic Closed Timelike Curves and biblical prophecies make far more interesting research grant candidates ;)

[Huguenot]

Dan Brown thought they were a neat little commercial opportunity too. It was a rubbish book though - took around 4 hours out of an already desperately short life.

Personally I think consistency between faiths is more likely to reflect a lack of imagination in dealing with the 'bigger questions' than evidence of insight. Crash and rebirth is an oft explored poetic metaphor...

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper

When Eliot was questioned about the easy application of this to almost every catastrophic phenomena (it was actually about the Gunpowder Plot) he became quite irritated, but the fact he was asked so often tells its own story.

[HAL9000]

Getting back on topic...

Anyone curious about the extent of the problem can find various lists of species by following the links/sub-links below:

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

> List of critically endangered species

> List of endangered species

List of extinct animals

> Modern extinctions

> > List of extinct birds

> > List of extinct mammals

> > List of extinct butterflies

List of extinct plants

> Modern extinctions

I don't know how up-to-date these lists are but a quick scan through did not reveal any discernable spike in the number of recent extinctions. For example, there are only three species of butterfly listed, all of which became extinct in the 1800s. On the other hand, the number of endangered species must be huge if the A - Ac section listed is representative of the rest of the list.

The IUCN Red List web site links to comprehensive data tables from this page: Summary Statistics for Globally Threatened Species.

[HAL9000]

In case anyone thinks I'm kidding about the availability of research grants for bizarre ideas:

Time-travelling Higgs sabotages the LHC. No, really

So, if the forum doesn't come back to the future - now you know why.

[Easties EL]

This thread almost became extinct. BOOOYAAA