Extinction
 

The recent thread about big-game hunting got me thinking. Both sides of the argument referenced a desire/effort to postpone or circumvent extinction of a given species. Here's my question. It's obvious that species go extinct as thousands (or perhaps millions) have done so since our globe solidified.

Why is it so important that we do things to avoid something that's unavoidable. All species go extinct. Heck, one day the sun will do the same. We can't stop it. So why not let natural selection do its job? Seems to me that we're overstepping our boundaries and abilities.

Thoughts?

If it's natural extinction the yes let it happen but we're loosing so many animal species because of loss of habitat. As we expand there's less room for them.

Animals will always come second to humans so eventually there will be no lage mammals left.
There's nothing natural about that.

As for the far future? :confused:

Most species extinctions happening today are not "natural selection". They are "species extermination by man" - by us.

Through habitat destruction, hunting, over fishing, pollution, we are wiping out other species on this earth. Since it is "us" choosing to wipe out species, we can also choose to not wipe out those species.

Human nature being what it is, we tend to care most about cool attractive larger species - tigers, elephants, tuna, whales.

Some people are indifferent to species extinction, and they present their view as "letting nature take its course". But when they or they kids get sick, they don't let nature take its course - they're at the doctor for intervention. So, maybe intervention to save a remarkable species of animal isn't such a weird idea.

But...the actions/behavior of humans as inhabitants of Earth could also be seen as part of natural selection. We do what we do for many reasons, so it could be said that the result of our own behavior is part of the evolutionary process, even if it results in distasteful things.

Not really defending this argument, but it's an interesting consideration. The comparison to our own individual health maintenance is a completely different matter. We have the means, instincts and intelligence to stay healthy. But when our day comes for human extinction, it will happen regardless of our efforts.

I don't know how you can say one extinction is natural and another is not given the impacts, both understood and not, that humans have on the world.

I wish mosquitoes would go extinct. Everything humans have tried have not been successful.

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

Something I read recently suggests that 85 percent of all species are yet undiscovered, we only have cataloged 15%.

In addition, 50% of the Earth's BIOMASS is in soil, either underground, or in the soil of the ocean floor. Some of these simple organisms are referred to zombie organisms and may take up to a million years to split/divide.

Yes, something like 98% of all life which has even been on earth is now extinct (if I recall correctly), I'm in no rush to add to that list.

.
Even if one took the position that our extermination of another species is simply natural selection at work, humans have the capacity to understand their own power and position in the global food chain. We understand that we could eradicate thousands of specifies if we choose, but it is to our own benefit to show restraint. Maintaining the diversity of the planet provides a healthier environment for humans. It causes us to consider our actions beforehand.

The planet if vast, and there is plenty of room for humans to exist along side the natural world for a long, long time. But thats a choice, and I'm glad there are people fighting to maintain the natural world.

Learn to swim..

What it boils down to is one of two things.

Either we're all the product of chance and evolution, or we're a special creation gifted with the power to create in addition to the natural entropic power to destroy.

If, as our schools teach us, its option #1, then there shouldn't be any issue with exterminating lions.

Here in Tucson, there were quite a few bighorn sheep in the mountains. Human encroachment and development put an end to the herd in the 1990's. A few months ago 31 sheep were reintroduced to the same area to bring them back to the area. So far 8 of them have died. The first few were killed by mountain lions so game & fish killed the lions. That didn't go over very well with the public. The sheep are still dying and all of their efforts will be for nothing. There is a reason the original herd disappeared. Why do they think this would work?

Then what would the bats eat?



I'm sure hunters have a solution.

I agree - why tamper with evolution.

Never liked the mandatory seat belt or motorcycle helmet laws for example....let natural selection work!

We've seen the same sad, misguided efforts on several occasions (but with different species) here in Washington. Same results, though. This is often the case when emotionally driven public sentiment is allowed to overrule or even undermine sound wildlife management practices.

The thing to do would have been to protect the land from development, to set it aside so that the sheep could flourish. The problem is, though, that the developers offered real money for the land, and not many will turn that down.

Hunters have, time and time again, stepped in with their money, lobbying clout, and other efforts to make a real difference in many, many similar situations. We can't be everywhere, though, and there is a limit to our funds. If only the non-hunting public would get on board and offer real help where it can have a real affect. They seem to excel at closing the barn door after the horses got out, and then complaining when their ill conceived plans don't work, or take some extra management efforts (like culling predators) to make it work.

We've seen it time and time again here - they will fight to "reintroduce" species against the advice of the game department, then fight the game department's policies meant to assist with the reintroduction. In their world, I guess mountain lions should understand what they are trying to do and be nice enough to leave the poor, struggling critters alone... :rolleyes:

Pride or Hubris. Choose one.

Since a basic definition of Hubris is overweening pride, I kind of look at it like biting the tit that feeds you. Nobody really knows how the Earth will function without fairly complete ecosystems in place.

So let's all rush to find out.

Bighorn (wild) sheep mostly were extirpated because of diseases from domestic sheep when they were introduced - if the state Game Dept.s stop introducing Bighorns you lose the wild sheep in wild places and you don't learn why the introductions are failing. The intros in oregon are doing pretty well overall. Obviously, Bighorns were able to coxist with mtn. lions and other predators for millions of years.

Extinctions over evolutionary time happen (background rates) but the rate is far slower than today; human caused extinction rates are thousands of times that of background rates - for amphibians they are maybe 40,000x

There are numerous ethical, moral and religious reasons to prevent extinction as well as many economic reasons (Google 'ecosystem services').

Congress already considered why it was important when they passed the Endangered Species Act and no doubt so did President nixon when he signed it into law.

Ultimately, allowing a species to go extinct is like burning down a with library with unique collections in it.

Strongly agree!

Perhaps worse. Don't certain medicines come from animals?

Or diseases?

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.

most medicines come from animals, plants, fungi, etc. - still true, even today when we have advanced 3D molecular modeling programs

in other cases, we initially find a medicine in a living organism and then synthesize copies of it later on in the lab - one example is the Pacific Yew tree, which we used to try and kill off in clearcuts to help Doug Fir (lumber) grow - until we found a potent cancer drug in it; later the compound was isolated and synthesized

a type of algal scum found only in a single hot springs in Yellowstone nat'l Park is the basis for PCR (polymerase chain reaction) - the foundation of the multi-trillion dollar industry of DNA-based molecular genetics, and genetic disease/disorder treatments

Ed Wilson discusses some of this in his very readable books, Diversity of Life is one of them