Extinction

[Chocaholic]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

Interesting how we have focused on animals in this thread. But the extinction of plants is a huge problem. The cure for cancer may have been a tiny flower growing in a suburban field, plowed under to make way for yet ANOTHER big box store parking lot.

Or the presence of that tiny flower may have a causative relationship to a future/new plant or animal that is prevented from thriving due to its existence. So, preserving that tiny flower may be preventing a potential cure for cancer, but we don't know any better. We just "feel" like we should prevent its extinction.

Again...just playing devil's advocate a bit, but I have to say that I think we're a bit arrogant as a species to believe we can influence, or more importantly, should influence mother nature.

[RWebb]

You'll be a better devil's advocate if you take an ecology course. You can then substitute knowledge for feelings. Extirpation of a species does not mean a new species will arise to "take its place" - if one does, then that will only happen over evolutionary time scales, maybe millions of years. In the meantime, you lose any benefit from the original species.

Extinction has such negative consequences that scientists have even prevented the extinction of the most dreaded diseases, including the smallpox virus, variola. It was simply erased from the wild and held 'captive" in two containment facilities.

[island911]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Mankind caused environmental change is responsible for most of the die offs, that is not natural section at work.
....

Because 'man' is NOT a part of nature, but rather a super-natural force if invaders from the now dead planet Krypton....



Bodies die, life is tenacious. (Life goes on.)

[fastfredracing]

Every time something like this comes up, I think of this.