Animal extinctions

[cman]

Animal populations are plummeting. Close to 40% of all species are threatened with extinction, including about 1/4th of all mammal species. Roughly half of all species are expected to be extinct by the end of the century, mostly due to habitat disruption. Way to go humans. What should be done, if anything?


Here are some sources, but it's everywhere you care to look.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/06/endangered.mammals/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7142053.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/05/endangeredspecies.conservation

 

[snex]

99.99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, and most went extinct before humans existed.

 

[manhunter098]

99.99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, and most went extinct before humans existed.

Well considering that ever lived covers a couple billion years, and next century covers about a hundred its made rather clear that the amount of species being lost at this point in time is not exactly the norm and that it is potentially very harmful to our own way of existence.

edit: Actually, Im not so sure that logic actually works, but you get the point.

 

[snex]

why is it harmful to our existence if certain species die out?

sure i can see if cows died, since they are tasty. i would miss cows. but cows are nowhere near extinction. in fact, neither is any other species that is eaten on a massive scale.

theres your solution. you want to save a species? start serving it at mcdonalds.

 

[manhunter098]

why is it harmful to our existence if certain species die out?

sure i can see if cows died, since they are tasty. i would miss cows. but cows are nowhere near extinction. in fact, neither is any other species that is eaten on a massive scale.

theres your solution. you want to save a species? start serving it at mcdonalds.

Im not really against a method like that. But basically loosing biodiversity is probably not a good thing for the survival of other species because of food webs and stuff. If you loose keystone species then you can cause a whole slew of other extinctions. In loosing those species we loose knowledge because some of them could benefit us more than species we currently depend on. If we loose the rain forests we loose access to knowledge of a multitude of beneficial chemicals.

Damage we cause to the balance of the earths ecosystems has a high potential to harm us if it occurs on a large scale, and if we loose half of all our species by the end of the century (not that I necessarily agree with that time frame) thats definitely loss on a large scale and its highly likely to have repercussions on humans.

If we want to alter the earths environment for our benefit Im all for it, but we shouldnt cause change on this scale by just ignoring the stress that we are not intentionally putting on the environment. That would just be leaving things to chance and thats not a good idea.

 

[OffTheChain]

I mean we have laws that protect certain animals endangered but really at some point I imagine it won't matter and we'll lose another species, maybe not in this life time however, breeding in Zoo's and other closed habitats are the best way to help keep them alive I've always thought.

 

[marthanoob]

I take the "They'll adapt or die." viewpoint, however plainly arrogant and ignorant others see it as.

 

[cman]

I take the "They'll adapt or die." viewpoint, however plainly arrogant and ignorant others see it as.

So then when/if they all die, no one is going to care? Animals are just for food is the basic tone of most posts.

 

[marthanoob]

So then when/if they all die, no one is going to care? Animals are just for food is the basic tone of most posts.

Expect to see a lot of rational people in debate forums. There are a lot of people out there that will have strong empathy for those animals.
I respect that, and I will tolerate giving a portion of my tax money towards conservation efforts, but I don't believe it should be overdone.

 

[manhunter098]

Well animals arent just food, but from the perspective of the human species other species are either going to help us to achieve a higher population and help us sustain our existence or they are going to do harm to us. So realistically if we want to populate this planet and hover around carrying capacity with our population we are going to have to send plenty of organisms into extinction.

Of course we still stand to benefit from their existence until we know everything about them, at that point we will truly know of a species is beneficial to us or not. Thats why I think we need to increase conservation efforts at least until we can sequence and preserve the DNA of its species and select for the ones that will benefit us the most. Of course I also dont think we need to go crazy in our conservation efforts, but we definitely need to step it up from where it is now.

 

[Zook]

I've always had mixed feelings towards endangered animals.

On one side, they're just animals. Animals die out. They get outcompeted, they can't adapt to their environments, and they get blotted out from existance. From the perspective of a fellow animal, they don't matter.

On the other side, they're a precious gem. Once a species dies out, they're gone forever. An entire line of organism, thousands upon millions of years of evolution, wasted. From the human perspective, it really, truely is a shame.

I believe that if the decline of a species is directly related to human causes (ex. whales), we should try to yeild whatever we're doing that's harmful to them, unless it's absolutely necessary to the survival of more people. I think that humans are more important than some obscure species of insect that's dying out, anyways.

 

[Greenstreet]

In my opinion, we should be interested in the conservation of threatened animals so far as we are the ones causing the threat, although in most cases, this holds to be true. Regardless of that, I don't think we as a species capable of moral/intelligent/reasoning/considerational thought have the right to 'disrupt' so many other lifeforms. I read a quote that pretty much sums up what I'm getting at:

"In a sense, all living things are at the peak of evolution. Sacrificing the very existence of any life form for something as superfluous and transitory as money is an outrageous crime against Nature." VHEMT

That site also, although slightly absurd in places, gives a few hypotheticals on Ecology and extinction of animals if humans were less of a habitual disrupter.

It also talks about the power that we have as humans and whether it should be used to continue to destroy natural habitat or restore it. I for one really want to see the world restored. And I think humans SHOULD be doing all that they can. Though I am not sure I agree about VHEM's concept...

But anyway, back on topic, I'm really not sure there is anything that humans can actively do to stop continual extinction of species.
I mean, to me, the world is not a community, at all. We are a group of greed-centred individuals who hide behind organisations to achieve our goals, whether it be money, power, fame etc. The reason I say this is that no matter what, there is going to be one person who needs a rainforest to be brought down for more profit, there is going to be whalers who say, well as long as "I" don't kill the last one. And unfortunately, these types of people group together, populate political parties and sit in board rooms, so unfortunately, they will also allows these things to go on, whether because they get a benefit, or for other reasons. Greed is pretty deadly when it infects 6 billion people.

Long story short, there is no kind of force that can really stop the momentum that is already set in place. Lobby groups, picket lines and policies can emerge now and again, but in the end, I don't think it can be stopped until it's far too late.

 

[Thrillhouse-vh.]

Just heard about this new show coming out in my Marine Biology Class

http://animal.discovery.com/tv/whale-wars/

It follows the Sea Shepherds, the badass counterparts for Green Peace. The show follows them around the Southern Ocean disrupting and protesting the works of Japanese Research Whaling. I'll be sure to check this out.

As I said before, I'm studying Marine Biology and the amount of marine life in threat of being wiped out is incredibly sad. Not just Green Sea Turtles in Hawai'i or anything, but I think it's especially important for me to note the marine wildlife in the San Francisco Bay Area. What's REALLY sad is when it is completely unintentional. When people in CA flush their cat litter and feces down the toilet, parasites infect the otters and eat their brains, muscles, etc. from the inside. Obviously it's more complicated than that, but that is a very broad generalization of ignorance killing (I'm not saying you're a horrible person if you do flush your cat's litter down the toilet and kill otters, odds are very likely you had absolutely no idea, as we didn't for a while either).

Take a look here (This website also has more information about why your cats are killing otters):
http://www.seaotterresearch.org/deathchart.shtml

Obviously we cannot do anything about Shark Attacks, Mating and other Traumas, etc., but can we do anything to stop the death of Otters indirectly from toxoplasma gondii and other parasites, and let's not forget our over-fishing reducing food supplies? I say with getting this information out (I saw an article on this in Time, so that's a start) and informing people, yes. Can we do anything about the amount of Otters getting killed by Boat Strikes or GUNSHOT WOUNDS? HELL YES. If you shoot an Otter, that pretty much sums it up, you're an ***hole.

Whaling is a whole other issue, especially with Japan. Japan has a long cultural history with Whaling, and after World War II, Whaling literally fed hundreds and hundreds of starving people. But since it became so westernized over the years and developed alternative needs faster than others, do they really have such a strong cultural connection to it as much as, say, Inuit and other native peoples? I agree with Sea Shepherds that the Whaling definitely needs to be knocked down a notch, but I don't believe that harassing them on site will solve it.

I look forward to Whale Wars, but I expect there will be much un-needed anti-sentiments.

 

[KING BRISKET]

If a species is on the brink of extinction because of the actions of man(construction, hunting, etc.) I feel we are obligated to protect it and allow it to repopulate. However, if a species is close to extinction because it isn't able to adapt to natural changes in the environment, I believe we should allow nature to take its course.

 

[manhunter098]

If a species is on the brink of extinction because of the actions of man(construction, hunting, etc.) I feel we are obligated to protect it and allow it to repopulate. However, if a species is close to extinction because it isn't able to adapt to natural changes in the environment, I believe we should allow nature to take its course.

As an animal though everything we do is part of the natural world. If an animal evolves and out competes another species it is somehow none of our concern, yet when we do the same thing we are somehow obligated to help? I dont see the reasoning there. The only thing humanity should look out for is its own continuation, the same as any animal. If that means saving a species from extinction caused by an animal that isnt us, then we should do it, if it means protecting a species that we are causing to co extinct then thats what we need to do. It shouldnt matter that the species is going extinct, but rather that we can benefit more from its continued survival.

 

[Greenstreet]

Wow. manhunter is blunt lol.
Ofcourse I don't agree that we should just look out for our own continuation.. Why? Because to me that's fairly narrow.
There is a difference between an animal destroying another animal and humans destoying an animal. Keep in mind that this is just my opinion though and I respect your just as much. But as the most powerful being on this Earth, don't you think we have a sense of stewardship over the world. If we desperately desired continuation, then all that would be left in the future is animals used for food, zoo's and the odd tree along a street to keep us all from suffocating. Sure we continue, but is it right? Because of the human's advanced sense of morality and reasoning we have a greater responsibility than that of animals who wipe out a species. We know we are wiping out a species. We know that although their extinction may 'benefit' us (more raw material blah blah) but is it worth never seeing that creature again? I dunno, I guess I just like to appreciate that each creature is unique and I hate to see things get lost forever.
Well, until they perfect cloning anyway. Then this thread will be useless lol.
I guess it comes down to how much you feel animals deserve space next to us.

 

[Blackadder]

As an animal though everything we do is part of the natural world. If an animal evolves and out competes another species it is somehow none of our concern, yet when we do the same thing we are somehow obligated to help? I dont see the reasoning there. The only thing humanity should look out for is its own continuation, the same as any animal. If that means saving a species from extinction caused by an animal that isnt us, then we should do it, if it means protecting a species that we are causing to co extinct then thats what we need to do. It shouldnt matter that the species is going extinct, but rather that we can benefit more from its continued survival.

The other guy's right, **** blunt there. ^^

But I'd disagree. The issue is that everything we do nowdays ISN'T part of the natural world. We've taken a friggin' flying leap right passed that business. In a lot of ways, we're higher and mightier than the other species of the planet, and I feel it's our duty to help them keep going.

Originally, species were made to both compete and co-exist. Somewhere down the lane, humans took both to extremes. Some animals we've caused the death of fully, others we've upped the numbers of to insane amounts so we can have, say, milk. The first extreme is just... bad.

We should help the other animals on this world. Nature isn't going to function with a tiny ecosystem. Artists wouldn't have as much beauty to sketch. ...There wouldn't be as many pretty sounds!

Plus we would get a warm fuzzy feeling. I'm sort of rambling, it's late.

Look -- I'm just saying we need to look after more than just our own skins. It should be in our interests. Just because we're smarter than the other animals doesn't give us the right to stomp them out solely because ther n0t helpn Us.

 

[Lord Viper]

I believe part of the reason that animals are endangered speciesnis because most of them can't protect them selves. Look at Dodo birds, one of few flightless birds that ever excisted couldn't handle the envoirment in the animal and human kingdom. Of course Dodo birds has been extinct for a long time so many people believe that they was an easy pray to many other animals due to Dodo's being flightless and can't escape from danger, that in conclusion is one of many reasons of why animals are becoming extincted is that most of them can't defend themselves.

That and another sad tell about another flightless bird that's endangered IMO is the Penguins.

 

[manhunter098]

The other guy's right, **** blunt there. ^^

But I'd disagree. The issue is that everything we do nowdays ISN'T part of the natural world. We've taken a friggin' flying leap right passed that business. In a lot of ways, we're higher and mightier than the other species of the planet, and I feel it's our duty to help them keep going.

Originally, species were made to both compete and co-exist. Somewhere down the lane, humans took both to extremes. Some animals we've caused the death of fully, others we've upped the numbers of to insane amounts so we can have, say, milk. The first extreme is just... bad.

We should help the other animals on this world. Nature isn't going to function with a tiny ecosystem. Artists wouldn't have as much beauty to sketch. ...There wouldn't be as many pretty sounds!

Plus we would get a warm fuzzy feeling. I'm sort of rambling, it's late.

Look -- I'm just saying we need to look after more than just our own skins. It should be in our interests. Just because we're smarter than the other animals doesn't give us the right to stomp them out solely because ther n0t helpn Us.

I dont claim that humanity has a right to do anything. And really its not in our best interest to try to kill off a species unless its existence is hurting our own, its a waste of resources to try to kill off a species that has a neutral impact on us. And yeah I do take into account ecosystem stability in my conclusions, I mean we need a stable environment to live in if we are to have any chance of survival so until we can engineer the earth's ecosystems to suit our needs, keeping as many species alive as we can is going to be in our best interest.

 

[Greenstreet]

I think we've reached a pretty good point here. Only thing to add is that I think sometimes we should sacrifice some of our own benefit if another species will be hinder/extinctified.

Sure, if cutting down a rainforest destroys .000001% of the species population, then the risk mightn't be too great, but there is a point where even though we will benefit from the action, the damage to the environment/certain species will be too great, and we need to back off.

So where do we think that line is?

 

[manhunter098]

I think we've reached a pretty good point here. Only thing to add is that I think sometimes we should sacrifice some of our own benefit if another species will be hinder/extinctified.

Sure, if cutting down a rainforest destroys .000001% of the species population, then the risk mightn't be too great, but there is a point where even though we will benefit from the action, the damage to the environment/certain species will be too great, and we need to back off.

So where do we think that line is?

Hence why we shouldnt just indiscriminately destroy the rain forests. At least not until we understand them, but if we could replace them with something that would benefit us more in the long run, then really while perhaps we shouldnt do it until we need to, I dont think the rain forest is more important than humans.

 

[Mewter]

I believe part of the reason that animals are endangered speciesnis because most of them can't protect them selves. Look at Dodo birds, one of few flightless birds that ever excisted couldn't handle the envoirment in the animal and human kingdom. Of course Dodo birds has been extinct for a long time so many people believe that they was an easy pray to many other animals due to Dodo's being flightless and can't escape from danger, that in conclusion is one of many reasons of why animals are becoming extincted is that most of them can't defend themselves.

That and another sad tell about another flightless bird that's endangered IMO is the Penguins.

The human kingdom isn't separate from that of the animal kingdom. Humans are included in it.
Of course, that is the reason animals become extinct. Things happen out of their control. Humans killed off the dodo population. Biodiversity is generally a good thing, where it's needed. The dodo's were largely affected by the interference of a new species to which they weren't used to. Even if the humans may not have done all of the damage, they didn't help the matter. Disrupting ecosystems is a potentially dangerous disaster just waiting to explode .We, as highly sentient beings, need to respect nature. Now, I believe that if something is going to affect large groups of animals in the long run, then we need to cut back on what we're doing. We also need to protect individual species if necessary.

 

[Greenstreet]

Hence why we shouldnt just indiscriminately destroy the rain forests. At least not until we understand them, but if we could replace them with something that would benefit us more in the long run, then really while perhaps we shouldnt do it until we need to, I dont think the rain forest is more important than humans.

Yeah, but you've got to realise that when you say that humans are more important than the rainforest, it's kinda different. We are talking about the lives in the rainforest, destroying actual life, compared to just extra benefits for humans, not necessarily survival.
I would probably knock down a rainforest if a town of humans lives were at stake, but most of the time the benefit is money, and I don't see why we shuld destroy other life for such a thing.

"In a sense, all living things are at the peak of evolution. Sacrificing the very existence of any life form for something as superfluous and transitory as money is an outrageous crime against Nature." VHEMT

 

[manhunter098]

Yeah, but you've got to realise that when you say that humans are more important than the rainforest, it's kinda different. We are talking about the lives in the rainforest, destroying actual life, compared to just extra benefits for humans, not necessarily survival.
I would probably knock down a rainforest if a town of humans lives were at stake, but most of the time the benefit is money, and I don't see why we shuld destroy other life for such a thing.

Well I am thinking of creating more humans (thus more lives) and increasing the carrying capacity of the planet by replacing the rain forest with something more effective, that is of course assuming there is something more effective to replace it with.

 

[marthanoob]

This is a completely value-based argument (not debate).
As of now, I just see people writing appeals to feeling/reason.

Unless you are confidant you can pull an Obama, then there is not much point in continuing to bicker.

 

[Greenstreet]

Unfortunately, alot of debates come down to this kind of argument. Your right though..

 

[Mewter]

This is a completely value-based argument (not debate).
As of now, I just see people writing appeals to feeling/reason.

Unless you are confidant you can pull an Obama, then there is not much point in continuing to bicker.

You're right.
There's that, and there's also nobody to really debate with. Now, if we could change the topic to "why the causes of extinctions are happening"(the cause of the cause of extinction) we might start to debate, but even that has the probability of becoming stale.

 

[Lord Viper]

One of a few ways to debate about the animal being extinct extinction is should there be an animal zoo that only accept endangered species, or is that a bad idea?

 

[KING BRISKET]

One of a few ways to debate about the animal being extinct extinction is should there be an animal zoo that only accept endangered species, or is that a bad idea?

That is one of the smartest suggestions I've heard concerning this issue. Even though there are already private sanctuaries that are constructed to house specific species, I've never heard of a public zoo that keeps a variety of endangered species. This is an idea that should definitely be looked into.

 

[marthanoob]

It should be looked into, but it is also a temporary solution.

 

[Mini Mic]

why is it harmful to our existence if certain species die out?

Because it's our responsibility to clean up after ourselves. Think of it this way, if another race came to Earth and began to terraform the planet so they could survive here and we could not, not because they need to but because they can would you be ok with it? Ok that may have been a terrible metaphor but the point still stands.

You say that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. True but the earth is really ****ing old and those species died as a result of natural selection. Those with the physical characteristics to survive the changing environment survive and breed while the remainder die out. The problem now is that humans are changing the environment at such a rate that no species, with the exception of some bacteria will be able to survive. Look at global warming, if we don't do something about it in the next 16 years or so we will be unable to undo the damage we've caused and then we're all ****ed. The fact of the matter is we are the only species with the capacity to protect the rest from the damage we have done.

The worst part about it is that we continue to **** the planet mercilessly knowing full well the damage we're doing. Look at the Minki Whale, the Japanese are going to hunt it to extinction because they like the taste of it. 10,000 years ago humans developed agriculture for a reason: to preserve food supplies. Killing whatever we can find without any regard to the bigger picture is irresponsible and stupid.

 

[Mewter]

Because it's our responsibility to clean up after ourselves. Think of it this way, if another race came to Earth and began to terraform the planet so they could survive here and we could not, not because they need to but because they can would you be ok with it? Ok that may have been a terrible metaphor but the point still stands.

You say that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. True but the earth is really ****ing old and those species died as a result of natural selection. Those with the physical characteristics to survive the changing environment survive and breed while the remainder die out. The problem now is that humans are changing the environment at such a rate that no species, with the exception of some bacteria will be able to survive. Look at global warming, if we don't do something about it in the next 16 years or so we will be unable to undo the damage we've caused and then we're all ****ed. The fact of the matter is we are the only species with the capacity to protect the rest from the damage we have done.

The worst part about it is that we continue to **** the planet mercilessly knowing full well the damage we're doing. Look at the Minki Whale, the Japanese are going to hunt it to extinction because they like the taste of it. 10,000 years ago humans developed agriculture for a reason: to preserve food supplies. Killing whatever we can find without any regard to the bigger picture is irresponsible and stupid.

Agreed.
Wait a moment. This is not a debate. We're restating the same thing over and over. Maybe we could change the topic to whether global warming, inhumane zoo conditions, or illegal poaching.

 

[Mini Mic]

Agreed.
Wait a moment. This is not a debate. We're restating the same thing over and over. Maybe we could change the topic to whether global warming, inhumane zoo conditions, or illegal poaching.

Wash, rinse and repeat

 

[Greenstreet]

Yeah ppl are gettin unified. This topic must of failed lol.
We should change it to discussing the wilful destruction of nature for profit/personal benefit...
Anything interesting there?

 

[Mewter]

Yeah ppl are gettin unified. This topic must of failed lol.
We should change it to discussing the wilful destruction of nature for profit/personal benefit...
Anything interesting there?

That's almost the same thing. Although, the personal benefit part might work. Some people used to hunt animals for tradition or for survival. Some people are feeling repressed by laws that they think are unlawful. Of course, that topic is probably used up, too.
But willful destruction of nature for profit/ personal benefit? No. If you want more oil, drill elsewhere.
... offshore oil drilling, maybe?

 

[Lord Viper]

I'm guessing animal extinction being in crisis is one of the subjects that's not really possible to debate, lol. But we can debate on what should be done with the problem with animal extinction.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I think more preservation organizations need to be active to prevent poaching and animals dying out, but even then I'm sure more will die out, it is really too bad, they didn't do anything.

 

[cman]

I think more preservation organizations need to be active to prevent poaching and animals dying out, but even then I'm sure more will die out, it is really too bad, they didn't do anything.

Do more you say? With what resources? Should they be given more money to accomplish that end? From the government? There is a lot of ground to patrol when trying to prevent poaching.

It is easy to say "Animals are nice! They should be saved!" but much harder to do something about it.

 

[Mr.Fakeman]

So due to government policies or their restrictions are what make it hard or something else? I mean it is different for each country and depending what species your trying to prevent from extinction right?

 

[zrky]

If you really live in Australia (not stereotyping) im sure you would understand conservation laws.

No, it wouldn't matter what species you are protecting. If a government decides that during a certain season a certain animal is endangered, then they would make laws covering that season. If truly under a threat of extinction a government should take full responsibility for the conservation of that species, wether it be national government or local government.

Really I think that if an animal is more than just a threatened species, then all possible measures should be taken to try and keep the species alive. A perfect example is the Black-footed ferret.