Magic species extermination button

[Kislath]

Suppose you're granted one single use of a device which will utterly and forever wipe one, and only one, single species from the planet earth in an instant.
What do you eliminate?

[Serpentine]

None. Every species has its ecological role to play in the world, and getting rid of any completely could - indeed, probably will - have far-reaching and unpredictable consequences.
If we could localise it, eliminate one species in a particular area? Possibly cane toads in Australia.

[DragonOfUndeath]

I'm gonna go with the Humanitarian approach.

Humans

We have an equal chance of destroying the planet in a game of Global Thermonuclear War and running out of resources and simply abandoning it to a slow death. With us out of the way a better Sapient species might pop up and use our tech (not our weapons though) to fast-track their advancement and represent the Earth way better.

[Mono Vertigo]

I'm fully aware it is most probably wrong and that I could collapse a whole system... but to be completely honest, I'd be tempted to take the selfish route and obliterate a spider species that is big enough to scare me and that I'm likely to encounter in my lifetime. Arachnophobia is a harsh mistress.
Problem is, which species?
If it's any consolation, I could very well waste my own life trying to decide which spider needs to go and if it is worth it. :smallyuk:

[DragonOfUndeath]

But Spiders are cute!
I like the hairy ones as big as your hand, I know they are kinda small but I like them, keeps the flies away. I have a couple around my front and back doors and they work like a charm.

[Kislath]

hehheh, I figured this would turn out to be a bit tricky. Almost everything is good for something, after all. This should be fun.

[Asta Kask]

Some virus species are just begging for it. I mean - who'd miss measles, mumps or rubella?

[GodGoblin]

Dolphins. The world would be a better place without those vile undersea schemers.

[Coidzor]

Well, if HIV counted, that'd be somewhat tempting. As it is? Well, reply hazy, ask again later.

[Comet]

Some virus species are just begging for it. I mean - who'd miss measles, mumps or rubella?

This was what I was thinking, yeah. I'm hardly an expert, so I'd probably just wuss out and leave the button unpressed in the end, though.



I'm gonna go with the Humanitarian approach.

Humans


This, however, I would oppose by any means available. Sure, we have our flaws and shortcomings, but I think there's too much good in humanity's past and, indeed, future to just wipe us all out in the hope of some magical wonderfolk coming along and salvaging our achievments and carrying on from where we left. It just sounds unfair.
And besides, I'm a human and I like my human existence very much. Selfish, yes, but relevant.

[Silverlich]

Mosquitoes. If malaria could be ended....

[Mercenary Pen]

Mosquitoes. If malaria could be ended....

Surely by magic means you could just target malaria itself without having to go for the mosquitoes... Unfortunately, doing so would create a degree of unemployment amongst all those businesses making and selling mosquito nets, etc.

I'll go with MRSA or another Medicine-resistant superbug, I know something would crop up to replace it in the long term, but think of how much safer hospitals would be in the shorter term...

[Brother Oni]

Mosquitoes. If malaria could be ended....

Why mosquitoes? If you could end a species and wanted to end malaria, choose one of the malaria causing parasites. :smallconfused:


I'll go with MRSA or another Medicine-resistant superbug, I know something would crop up to replace it in the long term, but think of how much safer hospitals would be in the shorter term...

Staphylococcus aureus is a naturally occuring bug which is usually harmless (it can be found up your nose). MRSA, or Methicillin Resistant S. Aureus isn't technically a separate species, it's just a population which has developed resistance to antibiotics.

[Mercenary Pen]

Staphylococcus aureus is a naturally occuring bug which is usually harmless (it can be found up your nose). MRSA, or Methicillin Resistant S. Aureus isn't technically a separate species, it's just a population which has developed resistance to antibiotics.

Disclaimer: Not a biologist. Wasn't certain whether it had changed enough to be a different species, but I'd still want to try and get rid of one of the so-called Superbugs...

[Mauve Shirt]

Stinkbugs. They have infested every corner of our property, and pretty much all of MD, DC and VA. They are absolutely disgusting.

[Tengu_temp]

Pandas. They're completely unsuitable for survival - they only eat one specific plant, their metabolism is so inefficient that they can tire and die from going up a hill, and they don't naturally know how to breed. If they were uglier, we'd let them die out naturally long ago - but a lot of money and effort goes into helping them because they're cute. When pandas are gone, all that money and effort will go into helping other endangered species - ones that are not as cute, but more vital to their ecosystems.

[Kislath]

I'd probably go with common cat fleas. Not as bad as pandas, maybe, but I really hate 'em.

[druid91]

Copperheads.

[Science Officer]

"Jellyfish, eh, what do they do? Just float around.
I read somewhere that they're 98% water.
Why not just give them the other 2% and make 'em water."

But seriously, I don't think I'd have any use for a scroll of genocide. (http://nethack.wikia.com/wiki/Scroll_of_genocide)

[LaZodiac]

The problem with this question is that even the most horrible thing needs to exist so other things can eat it. Now, if this magic replaced said species with a newer species that wasn't as annoying, I'd nuke mosquitos to death and back.

Of course, if diseases count as creatures, I would pick whatever it is that makes cancers.

[RebelRogue]

None. Every species has its ecological role to play in the world, and getting rid of any completely could - indeed, probably will - have far-reaching and unpredictable consequences.
AFAIK that's a common misconception. Sure, some species do fill a given, important niche in the ecosystem, but in general, species exist because they can, not because they fulfil som 'higher purpose'.

As for me (from a purely selfish POW) mosquitoes or giant hogweeds (those things just give me the creeps for some reason).

[druid91]

The problem with this question is that even the most horrible thing needs to exist so other things can eat it. Now, if this magic replaced said species with a newer species that wasn't as annoying, I'd nuke mosquitos to death and back.

Of course, if diseases count as creatures, I would pick whatever it is that makes cancers.

Cancer IIRC isn't caused by bacteria, it's your own cells getting confused and starting to grow.

[Serpentine]

Mosquitoes. If malaria could be ended....So long wetland ecosystems!

[Zaydos]

Pandas. They're completely unsuitable for survival - they only eat one specific plant, their metabolism is so inefficient that they can tire and die from going up a hill, and they don't naturally know how to breed. If they were uglier, we'd let them die out naturally long ago - but a lot of money and effort goes into helping them because they're cute. When pandas are gone, all that money and effort will go into helping other endangered species - ones that are not as cute, but more vital to their ecosystems.

We found out pandas are by nature primarily carnivorous. The reason their metabolism is so bad and that they don't breed is because we've been starving them.


I'd probably go with common cat fleas. Not as bad as pandas, maybe, but I really hate 'em.

I think I can agree with this one.


The problem with this question is that even the most horrible thing needs to exist so other things can eat it. Now, if this magic replaced said species with a newer species that wasn't as annoying, I'd nuke mosquitos to death and back.

Of course, if diseases count as creatures, I would pick whatever it is that makes cancers.

Cancer is caused primarily by mutations in your DNA.

[Tengu_temp]

We found out pandas are by nature primarily carnivorous. The reason their metabolism is so bad and that they don't breed is because we've been starving them.

But do they eat meat in the wild? Or are they just herbivores with digestive traits more suitable for carnivores?

[Serpentine]

AFAIK that's a common misconception. Sure, some species do fill a given, important niche in the ecosystem, but in general, species exist because they can, not because they fulfil som 'higher purpose'.You're right that species don't exist to fulfil a particular "higher purpose" (it's the same reason why saying a species "evolved to" do something is erroneous). However, that doesn't change the fact that ecosystems develop and grow around the species that evolve within them. Remove one - especially keystone species - and an entire ecosystem could collapse, or at the very least have to undergo a major revamp.
And mosquitos? They're a keystone species of wetlands.
Cancer IIRC isn't caused by bacteria, it's your own cells getting confused and starting to grow.Some are, I think. A fair few cervical cancers are caused by viruses - thus the HPV(?) vaccine.

[Obrysii]

Cancer IIRC isn't caused by bacteria, it's your own cells getting confused and starting to grow.

There is some kind of enzyme that cancer cells either create or acquire that messes with telemerese (sp?). Normally the telemers shorten with each division to limit overall lifespan and cell growth. Cancer cells have a special modification that allows for (potentially) "unlimited" division and growth.

If that modification is a result of a virus or bacteria...

I would have to take a good long look at the various diseases of the world, and which one posses the greatest threat - and probably click the button for that.

[Zaydos]

But do they eat meat in the wild? Or are they just herbivores with digestive traits more suitable for carnivores?

Wiki says they eat it when available but depend primarily on bamboo. Last I heard was that they ate meat more than we'd ever believed but that was about a year ago.

[Ravens_cry]

I am going to agree with Coidzor and say HIV virus. I love humans, I don't want to see them wiped out and too many creatures many consider icky, like Mosquitoes, preform absolutely essential purposes in many ecosystems. But HIV is just a disease.

[Serpentine]

...but viruses might not be living things, and therefore aren't species :smalltongue:
Okay, I'd probably go with HIV, too.

[Murdim]

I'm gonna go with the Humanitarian approach.

Humans

We have an equal chance of destroying the planet in a game of Global Thermonuclear War and running out of resources and simply abandoning it to a slow death. With us out of the way a better Sapient species might pop up and use our tech (not our weapons though) to fast-track their advancement and represent the Earth way better.
Not as good a choice as one might think, really. While the long-terms benefits on biodiversity seem obvious, it would also mean sacrificing the lives of countless innocent domestic animals. Also, the extinct apes would be leaving all their infernal inventions behind them. Without their constant maintenance, those could cause even more damage by themselves than entire decades of human activity - and they're the only one to be able to dismantle them.

As far as humanity goes, mass enslavement is a far better solution. Yay for non-speciesist utilitarianism! :smallbiggrin:

[Ravens_cry]

...but viruses might not be living things, and therefore aren't species :smalltongue:
Okay, I'd probably go with HIV, too.

They are cell hijackers, life reduced to the point where it only becomes 'alive' when it has taken over a fully functioning cell. Quite elegent in a way.
What is living is arbitrary anyway, there is no elan vital that definitively distinguishes life and non-life.

[Serpentine]

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's the other way round: it's not something living that's been "reduced", it's a mass of proteins and stuff that has gained a semblance of life.
And it certainly is not arbitrary. Debated is not the same as arbitrary.

[Ravens_cry]

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's the other way round: it's not something living that's been "reduced", it's a mass of proteins and stuff that has gained a semblance of life.
And it certainly is not arbitrary. Debated is not the same as arbitrary.
What are you, what am I?
In a mass of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen (and pretty much every other element, but those are some of the most important) find me one microgram of life? It's a machine, a beautiful, beautiful machine, far greater then the sum if it's parts.

[Dvandemon]

Any poisonous animals that commonly exist in urban areas (I'm looking at you Black Widow). Do they really serve a purpose?
AFAIK that's a common misconception. Sure, some species do fill a given, important niche in the ecosystem, but in general, species exist because they can, not because they fulfil som 'higher purpose'.

As for me (from a purely selfish POW) mosquitoes or giant hogweeds (those things just give me the creeps for some reason).

The exact same method is the reason their are niches in the first place. Species exist because they can, only certain species stop that existance.

I can't help but imagine a world that's entirely a grass plain with nothing but grazing herbivores. Would that be a world of peace?

[Serpentine]

edit @^: Regarding your first question, of course they do. They eat a lot of bugs and things, and a lot of other animals eat them.
What are you, what am I?
In a mass of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen (and pretty much every other element, but those are some of the most important) find me one microgram of life? It's a machine, a beautiful, beautiful machine, far greater then the sum if it's parts.No. We are a mass of proteins and stuff that has obtained life by any definition. Viruses are a mass of proteins and stuff that might, just barely, be considered life according to some definitions but not others.
Professional scientists with a devotion to this field have spent decades debating this. Do you really think either of us is going to be able to decide it here? :confused:

[OverdrivePrime]

Though it's tempting to say humans some days, we're really pretty cool sometimes.

Instead, let's coordinate our species negating efforts and get rid of a bunch of nasties that make life suck.

Let's pretend that viruses count for species extermination.

I'll take care of Ebola if the rest of you can get rid of:

HIV, Malaria, Cholera, Smallpox, Polio, Influenza and Deer Ticks.

[Asta Kask]

Cancer IIRC isn't caused by bacteria, it's your own cells getting confused and starting to grow.

Cervix cancer has been mentioned. Another one is Hodgkin's Lymphoma, which can be caused by mononucleosis.


...but viruses might not be living things, and therefore aren't species :smalltongue:

That is true, most people draw the line at having their own metabolism. Hmm... would anyone miss tuberculosis? Caused by a bacterium and causes 1.8 million deaths per year.

[Hazzardevil]

Pandas. They're completely unsuitable for survival - they only eat one specific plant, their metabolism is so inefficient that they can tire and die from going up a hill, and they don't naturally know how to breed. If they were uglier, we'd let them die out naturally long ago - but a lot of money and effort goes into helping them because they're cute. When pandas are gone, all that money and effort will go into helping other endangered species - ones that are not as cute, but more vital to their ecosystems.

I see no point killing off Panda's, their on the brink of dying out anyway. And I belive in survival of the fittest. The Dodo's should have died out and I think that anything that dies out naturally should be protected.

[RebelRogue]

You're right that species don't exist to fulfil a particular "higher purpose" (it's the same reason why saying a species "evolved to" do something is erroneous). However, that doesn't change the fact that ecosystems develop and grow around the species that evolve within them. Remove one - especially keystone species - and an entire ecosystem could collapse, or at the very least have to undergo a major revamp.
And mosquitos? They're a keystone species of wetlands.Some are, I think. A fair few cervical cancers are caused by viruses - thus the HPV(?) vaccine.
That sounds right - I'm no biologist. I guess what I meant to write was: 'selfish and assuming the ecosystem remains stable otherwise' :smallbiggrin:

[Durmegil Guldur]

I'd sit on that button until an alien species attacks earth. Hey, it might happen. IF they can get here, there's not much we can do to stop them, right?

[Asta Kask]

Oh, and BTW, don't go the smallpox page on Wikipedia. There are pictures there that will haunt my dreams. :smallyuk:

[hamishspence]

edit @^: Regarding your first question, of course they do. They eat a lot of bugs and things, and a lot of other animals eat them.No. We are a mass of proteins and stuff that has obtained life by any definition. Viruses are a mass of proteins and stuff that might, just barely, be considered life according to some definitions but not others.
Professional scientists with a devotion to this field have spent decades debating this. Do you really think either of us is going to be able to decide it here? :confused:

There are some bacteria that can't reproduce outside of cells, as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus


Life properties:
Opinions differ on whether viruses are a form of life, or organic structures that interact with living organisms. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life", since they resemble organisms in that they possess genes and evolve by natural selection, and reproduce by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. Although they have genes, they do not have a cellular structure, which is often seen as the basic unit of life. Viruses do not have their own metabolism, and require a host cell to make new products. They therefore cannot naturally reproduce outside a host cell – although bacterial species such as rickettsia and chlamydia are considered living organisms despite the same limitation. Accepted forms of life use cell division to reproduce, whereas viruses spontaneously assemble within cells. They differ from autonomous growth of crystals as they inherit genetic mutations while being subject to natural selection. Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life, as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.



And they have quite a few traits of life- genes, evolution by natural selection, etc.

"Life" is one of those words that can be a little fuzzy in meaning.

[Asta Kask]

There's no sharp line, no, but most people draw the line at viruses. Why? Because they don't have their own metabolism.

[hamishspence]

That might be a case of parasitism- hijacking the target cell's metabolism.

It is one of those debatable areas- I've seen books about the history of viruses take the tack that the cell is the "normal" environment of the virus, and that judged this way, it's easier to classify them as at least a kind of life.

[Brother Oni]

I'll take care of Ebola if the rest of you can get rid of:

HIV, Malaria, Cholera, Smallpox, Polio, Influenza and Deer Ticks.

Smallpox was declared eradicated in 1979. If I recall correctly, only two places still hold samples of the virus - the CDC in Atlanta and one Russian facility.


With regard to the viruses being alive/not alive, here's a disease causing agent that's definitely not alive - prions.
No magic button of species genocide is going to be able to kill those, because they're not even a species.

[Weezer]

There's no sharp line, no, but most people draw the line at viruses. Why? Because they don't have their own metabolism.

You know that by saying that you ensured that I would go there, right?

[HalfTangible]

Genocide is wrong. But if i were forced to use it...

How far does a genetic code need to differ to be a different species, according to this button? Could i, for example, target an antibiotics-resistant strain of a virus? Or mosquitos that leave a specific radius around wetlands?

Or evil men?

[Borgh]

I'd reverse-engineer that ebil button and make it into an species-out of extinction button.

hmm and now? T-rex? cool but no real purpose. Maybe those giant manitees, not purposefull either but then at least we won't have a jurassic parc.

[Toofey]

As a New Yorker there is one clear answer to this question.

Bedbugs.

[Draconi Redfir]

honestly i would not remove humans. mainly because i am one and i do not want to die, but also because of one baisic fact: if sentiant species such as humans did not exist, even if the world would be a better place without them, there would be no one around to apriciate the beauty that is nature. animals don't spend hours just looking at the landscape, they can't truely apriciate beauty.


That said, i would eliminate... termites.

[Serpentine]

There are some bacteria that can't reproduce outside of cells, as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

And they have quite a few traits of life- genes, evolution by natural selection, etc.

"Life" is one of those words that can be a little fuzzy in meaning.I'm actually on the "viruses are life, but only very barely" side of things. I just think it's nonsensical for any of us to think we have the qualifications to declare one way or another and expect to be taken seriously.
With regard to the viruses being alive/not alive, here's a disease causing agent that's definitely not alive - prions.They're pretty cool, though, as far as horrifying abominations go. Woo, kuru!

[Gravitron5000]

Black flies, without a doubt, black flies. If I wasn't a certifiable black fly snack bar, my answer might be different.



Professional scientists with a devotion to this field have spent decades debating this. Do you really think either of us is going to be able to decide it here? :confused:

All I could think of when I read this was ... Roll Initiative!

[Fluff & Napalm]

Poison Ivy. Mostly because I have it on my hand right now. Boy does it itch.

[Kislath]

Alas, prions aren't species. ( and they'll kill us all, just you watch )
Viruses, though, would be allowed under this.

[shadow_archmagi]

Mosquitoes. Undeniably.

When the aliens come, I'll just Xcom at them.

[Sipex]

As a New Yorker there is one clear answer to this question.

Bedbugs.

Seconded. I've yet to find a good reason for them to exist. My friend's apartment has not seen an ecological downturn since the little jerks were run out, that's for sure.

[Ravens_cry]

Mosquitoes. Undeniably.

When the aliens come, I'll just Xcom at them.
Moquitoes, as annoying asthey can be, are an important part of many ecosystems.
Many pollinate plants and certainly provide food for fish and birds in both their larval and adult forms. Extinguishing them would be a BAD idea.


Or evil men?
Reading that made me shudder.:smalleek:

[Asta Kask]

There's about a bazillion species of mosquito, so taking out the one that spreads malaria probably won't make that much of a difference. Some other will expand instead.

[Blynkibrax]

Flies. Stupid, pointless, disease-carrying, annoying creatures.

[Anuan]

Canetoads.

Or ticks. To -hell- with ticks, man.

[Worira]

Hmm... I'd go with gremlins.

[Mordokai]

Oh, and BTW, don't go the smallpox page on Wikipedia. There are pictures there that will haunt my dreams. :smallyuk:

Oh trust me... what you've seen there is tame. Take any hematological atlas and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Right now, I'd opt to cancel out this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsporum) little bastard. Got me a case of it(at least I suspect as much, need to wait out for test results) and my leg looks lige I have gangrene.

No shorts for me this summer.

[Dvandemon]

edit @^: Regarding your first question, of course they do. They eat a lot of bugs and things, and a lot of other animals eat them.

That's spiders in general. I'm talking about the extremely venomous ones such as Black Widows. Do we really dangerous ones such as them in our specific environment?

[nerd-7i+42e]

I wouldn't kill any species, and not because it might/probably does serve some ecological function. Why does one species not have a right to live? You could argue that the species is killing humans, but then you're just saying you'd rather see the species die than humans — which, quite frankly, is terribly egocentric. In fact, you would be killing more individuals over all, because multiple viruses/bacteria/parasites infect a host (usually) and the mortality rate is less than 100%.

[The_Final_Stand]

I'm going to genocide wasps. With their flying, and the stinging, and the size, and all, I'm afraid that those things are gone.

[Xefas]

Spiders. Definitely spiders. Even if their extinction ended up causing an ecological chain reaction that wiped out all life on the planet; it's an acceptable risk. Our world is flawed. Flawed with spiders. We accept living on this spinning death trap because there's no readily available solution. But with a magic spider-genocide button, who could stand to live in such an imperfect world when there's even the slightest chance we could wipe out the malevolence given eight legged form and continue onward?

[Mono Vertigo]

Spiders.

*applauds*

... hey, I've just now realized the irony of seeing my avatar in this thread. :smallbiggrin:

[Andre]

Just one? Could I also press the button of behalf of the ones who refused? It would definitely smooth out the process. :smallwink:

Seriously, on an elemental level, there are way too many dangerous and likely irrelevant organisms out there, I'd gladly wipe out a few of them. Note, the ecosystem is already being damaged in a most effective fashion via other means, and while this is no biologist speaking, it would seem to me that polluting on daily bases is far more dangerous, and that's what we all do.
Then again, I probably wouldn't push that button anyway. Nature is just such a nasty bitch, it would just replace anything what was eradicated with something ten times worse proliferating instead.

[Coidzor]

hmm and now? T-rex? cool but no real purpose. Maybe those giant manitees, not purposefull either but then at least we won't have a jurassic parc.

Manatees have nothing to do with Jurassic Park. :smallconfused:


Genocide is wrong. But if i were forced to use it...

Genocide is the wrong term here anyway, as by definition it's confined to people. Further, how is eradicating a parasite that fulfills no ecological role wrong?


Or evil men?

Why only evil men? :smalltongue:

I must admit, the idea of leaving it up to any one person to decide who is evil and must be destroyed for it is... quite deliciously ironic...

[Brother Oni]

Why only evil men? :smalltongue:

I must admit, the idea of leaving it up to any one person to decide who is evil and must be destroyed for it is... quite deliciously ironic...

You've heard of Death Note, right? :smalltongue:

[Draconi Redfir]

you know... from an evolutionary standpoint at least, the extinction of a species isn’t really the end of the world, it just causes a bit of fluctuation. Then either another species takes up the niche of the dead one, or the chaos becomes the norm.


For example; take cats. Kill off all the cats and the mice population will explode, mice everywhere you look. they will at all the food, eat all the crops, eat all the buildings, total chaos.

Then one day a starving dog comes along and decides it's despite enough to take a bite out of a mouse. its good! Soon it starts eating more and more mice and getting healthier, teaching this habit to other dogs and producing mice-eating puppies. Soon all the dogs are eating mice and the mouse population plummets, only mice that can avoid the dogs will survive, and any plants or animals that survived the mouse explosion will spread into the territory of those that didn’t.

Another possibility is that the mouse population stays high, and plants and animals that can protect themselves from the mice somehow just live while those that can not die. Soon the world is full of plants that can resist being chewed on, animals that hide in trees, and a few wazillion mice.

Tl;dr: Any extinction will only cause temporary damage. Eventually evolution will take over and things will balance out again.

[Creed]

Rhinos.
Horned b@%$&&*s.:smalltongue:
Na, Rhinos just don't appeal to me very much.

[Ravens_cry]

Yes, the worst of us given the power to decide who lives and dies on a whim. I know about it. It doesn't really negate my point but rather reinforces it with a comedic and melodramatic air.
I doubt there is any among us who is worthy of making that kind of decision.

[Xefas]

I doubt there is any among us who is worthy of making that kind of decision.

I am. Let me do it. It'll be awesome.

[absolmorph]

I'm gonna go with the Humanitarian approach.

Humans

We have an equal chance of destroying the planet in a game of Global Thermonuclear War and running out of resources and simply abandoning it to a slow death. With us out of the way a better Sapient species might pop up and use our tech (not our weapons though) to fast-track their advancement and represent the Earth way better.
That word, I don't think it means what you seem to think it means.

[Tiniere]

Viruses
Destroying a given "species" of virus isn't practical, they're far too genetically varied for the destruction of one "species" to be of any selfish benefit to humanity... perhaps we could upgrade this magic device?

Cancer
Cancer is inherently a genetic disorder, that is to say something messed up in the genome of a group of cells. Viruses like the HPV can cause this by splicing their own DNA (or RNA for some) into our cell's coding DNA and disrupting the normal cell cycle. Some might actually say that cancerous cells created by this means could be thought of as "a separate entity" as they do have a different genetic make up, and will eventually develop trisomy, tetrasomy or pentasomy in several chromosomes (having some multiple of the normal number, which is 2 (autosomal) or 1 or 2 in the case of sex chromosomes)

My Choice
Lawn Grass. We've created it for the sole purpose of sitting in front of our houses and consuming water that could be put to much better use. It isn't an ecological keystone or food crop and has no real value other than being a hallmark of suburbia. That's my two cents~ certainly an interesting question though!

[Traab]

Africanized honey bees. Vicious nasty suckers, and they serve no purpose not already filled by regular honey bees. Death to the killer bees!

[Coidzor]

Africanized honey bees. Vicious nasty suckers, and they serve no purpose not already filled by regular honey bees. Death to the killer bees!

That's a good one, though I was never really clear on them.

A thought just occurred to me. I wonder if this device would work on Honey Badgers or if it'd only make them angry.

[Traab]

That's a good one, though I was never really clear on them.

A thought just occurred to me. I wonder if this device would work on Honey Badgers or if it'd only make them angry.

They were an experiment in cross breeding that went way bad. They brought african honey bees to brazil for some breeding experiment, some got loose and something about them is just insanely vicious. They are now spreading like a plague, slaughtering nice and gentle normal honey bees, and attacking and killing innocent people who got too close.

[Zaydos]

If I had to choose a type of animal, I might choose argentinian ants because they're an invasive animal that causes havoc to ecosystems across the globe. Honestly, though, I don't really feel like I have the required foresight to wipe a species from the Earth.

[Emperor Ing]

Poison Ivy. :smallyuk:

[Serpentine]

That's spiders in general. I'm talking about the extremely venomous ones such as Black Widows. Do we really dangerous ones such as them in our specific environment?What, you think those don't eat, and aren't eaten? :smallconfused:
Further, how is eradicating a parasite that fulfills no ecological role wrong?Who says it fulfills no ecological role? I'm not sure what, specifically, you're talking about, but I would be surprised if there's anything that has no ecological role.

If we're going for the reverse-extinction button, I want a mini stegasaurus :B

[DragonOfUndeath]

That word, I don't think it means what you seem to think it means.

Deliberate misuse to gently mock the fact I'm killing 6 Billion Sapients for a long-term plan.
And the irony of the Humanitarian approach killing all the Humans :smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

Who says it fulfills no ecological role? I'm not sure what, specifically, you're talking about, but I would be surprised if there's anything that has no ecological role.

Alright. What ecological role does HIV serve then? Or Treponema pallidum, the bacteria that causes syphilis, for that matter? We've already opened up the floor to virii, so...

Does any group or species other than fans of limburger cheese derive a benefit from the existence of that species of foot fungus?

[Orzel]

Chupacabra

I only have 2 goats left, man.

[Coidzor]

Come to think of it, the parasites that mind control rats into being eaten by cats so it can be in cats' digestive systems and then spreads over to humans because the way humans keep cats as pets puts them in direct contact with the... offspring of said parasites...

I'd quite happily get rid of those creepy and worrisome things, considering that last I heard of them it was thought that 2/3 of humanity was infested with them.

[Serpentine]

Alright. What ecological role does HIV serve then? Or Treponema pallidum, the bacteria that causes syphilis, for that matter? We've already opened up the floor to virii, so...For starters, I believe diseases are considered different to parasites. Those are all diseases, not parasites, and therefore do not come under your previous post.
For seconds, I'm not sure exactly - I've never studied disease from an ecological standpoint - but I guarantee they have a role, even if it's not one we like. For starters, the Red Queen hypothesis for evolution suggests that these are actually the - or at least a - driving force of natural selection. Remove them, and the ecology will definitely shift - starting with giving their usual host a major boost to their competitiveness (and, speaking ecologically, that is not something humans need).

[Dvandemon]

What, you think those don't eat, and aren't eaten? :smallconfused:

No, I think they can easily be replaced by harmless, non-poisonous spiders.
Africanized honey bees. Vicious nasty suckers, and they serve no purpose not already filled by regular honey bees. Death to the killer bees!

Japanese Giant Hornets man.

[Coidzor]

For starters, I believe diseases are considered different to parasites. Those are all diseases, not parasites, and therefore do not come under your previous post.
For seconds, I'm not sure exactly - I've never studied disease from an ecological standpoint - but I guarantee they have a role, even if it's not one we like. For starters, the Red Queen hypothesis for evolution suggests that these are actually the - or at least a - driving force of natural selection. Remove them, and the ecology will definitely shift - starting with giving their usual host a major boost to their competitiveness (and, speaking ecologically, that is not something humans need).

So HIV is a major source of population control that is important to keeping us from overpopulating and causing problems as a result of that overcrowding and so we shouldn't seek to eradicate it because that would be immoral? :smallconfused: Am I following the path this conversation thread has followed correctly? There has been a fair bit stretching across multiple pages.

Edit: Come to think of it, haven't we already significantly shifted ecologically anyway just from having invented medicine so any further impact of getting rid of one particular disease would be negligible anyway?

And how do you reckon that the bacteria that causes syphilis is a disease and not a parasite? :smalltongue: Especially when not but a few pages ago you were participating in a conversation highlighting the... appropriateness of the accusation being levied at a virus. Especially since I was reacting to someone acting eliminating viruses was somehow immoral and an act of genocide either intentionally or through sheer misfortune of timing after posting mostly on the subject of diseases before reacting to the post that set this set off, so while you may not have gleaned it from my word choice being slightly off kilter, I assure you that the context was all there.

[Serpentine]

So HIV is a major source of population control that is important to keeping us from overpopulating and causing problems as a result of that overcrowding and so we shouldn't seek to eradicate it because that would be immoral? :smallconfused: Am I following the path this conversation thread has followed correctly? There has been a fair bit stretching across multiple pages.HIV isn't only or originally a human disease. As it's only a very recent arrival in human populations, its ecological role amongst them is likely to be minimal at best. I'm terrified of AIDS, so I'm pretty definitely for its elimination in humans. But that doesn't mean you were correct to claim it has "no ecological role".
And there's a big difference between working out how to cure or prevent it in humans and eradicating it from the face of the Earth in one fell swoop.

And how do you reckon that the bacteria that causes syphilis is a disease and not a parasite? :smalltongue:I don't. Ecologists and biologists do. Go complain to them, or demonstrate that I am recalling incorrectly when I say they're categorised differently.
edit: Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microparasite) you go, I've done it for you. Though the use of "now" here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite) suggests that this is a new development.

Especially when not but a few pages ago you were participating in a conversation highlighting the... appropriateness of the accusation being levied at a virus. Especially since I was reacting to someone acting eliminating viruses was somehow immoral and an act of genocide either intentionally or through sheer misfortune of timing after posting mostly on the subject of diseases before reacting to the post that set this set off, so while you may not have gleaned it from my word choice being slightly off kilter, I assure you that the context was all there.The argument before was over whether viruses count as a living thing, and therefore subject to the hypothetical extermination button, not whether... whatever it is you're saying here I said it was, I'm not following you.

[Form]

Nasty diseases seem like good targets to me. HIV or, if that's not a valid target because it's a virus, then let's say cholera.

[Traab]

We could safely do away with virtually any man made species with minimal negative environmental impact. Like the africanized honey bees as an example. They would never have existed without our intervention, and the role they fulfill is already covered by the other species of honey bees out there.

That being said, the world has an incredible ability to adapt to changes. Species die out constantly, and the world keeps spinning. Yeah several named pests have a ecological function, but I dont think there is a single species that has an entire area of the ecology covered by itself. For instance, mosquitoes. You could make a case that they are a valuable food source for bats, frogs, and other insect eating animals, and you would be right. But its not like mosquitoes are the only bug in the area, those animals would adapt and just eat more of the other insects.

[Borgh]

We could safely do away with virtually any man made species with minimal negative environmental impact. Like the africanized honey bees as an example. They would never have existed without our intervention, and the role they fulfill is already covered by the other species of honey bees out there.

That being said, the world has an incredible ability to adapt to changes. Species die out constantly, and the world keeps spinning. Yeah several named pests have a ecological function, but I dont think there is a single species that has an entire area of the ecology covered by itself. For instance, mosquitoes. You could make a case that they are a valuable food source for bats, frogs, and other insect eating animals, and you would be right. But its not like mosquitoes are the only bug in the area, those animals would adapt and just eat more of the other insects.

There are, however, species called "keystone species" and those do exactly what it says on the tin: holding up entire ecosystems. Mosquitoes could well be a keystone species in quite a few areas as a single species can be so prolific is is a stapel foodsource for pretty much any small species and their extermination would cause problems for each of those species.

[Asta Kask]

We'll take the scientific approach: blast away a few species and see what happens. :smallbiggrin:

[Mono Vertigo]

Oh, I'm pretty sure that no matter what species in particular is exterminated, nature will get over it, one way or the other.
The thing is, in order to get over it, more species may disappear completely. Or several others thrive. Kill one mosquito species? Alright, but then other species of equally(-or-even-more)-annoying-but-less-known insects may prosper. Or its predators will have to eat more of other insects, some of which are important in their own way, disturbing the balance even more. And even more things I can't remember or think about right now. The point is, no, one whole species that suddenly disappears will not threaten the world. But beware the complex, unexpected, and unexpectable consequences. :smallamused:
In fact, as mentioned earlier, the few species that wouldn't cause a massive reorganization in faun and flora are man-made ones. Nature may not even notice if cows were to disappear, or domestic rats, or killer bees. We will, however. And we will mind... unless we're talking about the bees.
I'm voluntary leaving out truly key species such as grass and some other plants and animals. Anyone is free to imagine the huge death toll caused by sudden disappearance of grass... new animals and plants will repopulate the Earth, but after how long?

[Asta Kask]

I'd get rid of orcs. Low-level adventurers can beat up hobgoblins instead.

[Jude_H]

Canetoads.
4 pages, countless "spider"s, and you're the one to say it. I can't believe it.

**** cane toads. Seriously.

Edit:
I totally read the username as "Anuran." Maybe it's not as ironic as I thought. <_<

[Asta Kask]

4 pages, countless "spider"s, and you're the one to say it. I can't believe it.

**** cane toads. Seriously.

But that would also get rid of the cane toads in their natural habitat. Serp pointed this out.

[Jude_H]

But that would also get rid of the cane toads in their natural habitat. Serp pointed this out.
Whoa. First response even. :smallredface: Still, I could live with that.

[Sipex]

One thing to consider about how extinction usually doesn't cause world ending scenarios due to the whole 'something else takes it's place' thing. Usually extinction is at least SOMEWHAT gradual, the species population slowly reduces and others come in and take their place (ie: By eating the food that is now more available and the like). With a button it would all be instantaneous and the shock would cause a lot of damage.

[Asta Kask]

I suppose that it could be argued that whatever havoc that would wreak in South America would be offset by the havoc they are now wreaking in Australia. A cost-benefit analysis would be needed.

I also remember hearing that some snakes were adapting to the cane toad.

Hey, here's an idea! There's a species of opossum in South America that feeds on cane toads. Why don't we introduce that to Australia to get rid of the buggers!

[ZombyWoof]

None. Every species has its ecological role to play in the world, and getting rid of any completely could - indeed, probably will - have far-reaching and unpredictable consequences.
Wiping out Small Pox seems to have been fine.

I would eliminate Entovirus rhinovirus then dance on its smoldering remains.

Though I guess viruses might not count, them... not necessarily being alive.

[Serpentine]

But that would also get rid of the cane toads in their natural habitat. Serp pointed this out.Thanking you :smallcool:
Hey, here's an idea! There's a species of opossum in South America that feeds on cane toads. Why don't we introduce that to Australia to get rid of the buggers!Ummm... Probably cuz that would cause severe competition between those opossums and our possums and lots more environmental chaos?

(I'm sure you were being sarcastic, just wanted to point that out :smalltongue: Also, our possums >> opossums)

Fun fact: cane toads are driving the evolution of Australian snakes. Some snake species closest to where they were first introduced are evolving smaller heads (can only eat smaller toads) and bigger bodies (can handle more poison).

[Asta Kask]

Ummm... Probably cuz that would cause severe competition between those opossums and our possums and lots more environmental chaos?

Ahh... what are the odds? :smallsmile:

What's a larger problem - the cane toads or the rabbits?

[ZombyWoof]

...but viruses might not be living things, and therefore aren't species :smalltongue:
Okay, I'd probably go with HIV, too.
Viruses have species, but HIV isn't one species. There are two, actually :smallwink:

(HIV 1, HIV 2)

[Serpentine]

What's a larger problem - the cane toads or the rabbits?Good question... Rabbits are more widespread, but I think cane toads do more damage. I think the rabbit problem isn't as bad as it was a few decades ago, before Mixymatosis(sp?) and the Calici(sp?) Virus and that, and the cane toads are spreading, too.
So over all, I think cane toads.

[thubby]

im tempted to say yeast just to see how bakers cope.

[banjo1985]

I'd exterminate those pesky mammoths. Comin' into my garden, eating all my radishes...

*mutter/grumble*

[Eldan]

im tempted to say yeast just to see how bakers cope.

They wouldn't. Oh, and you'd also have to say goodbye to alcohol and vinegar.

[Mono Vertigo]

They wouldn't. Oh, and you'd also have to say goodbye to alcohol and vinegar.
And Marmite. Arguably a good thing for the Danish, and most of the world. :smallwink:

[Kislath]

Lots of great responses! I think my favorite one so far was to just save it until an alien invasion, and then wipe out the aliens. Many of the others were also VERY good. I'd hate for humanity to ever have to actually decide on one.

[RS14]

Arch-Liches--wait, wrong game.

Ignoring all the practical ecological concerns that would discourage me from doing anything, I'd love to see mosquitoes go. But there are 3,500 known mosquito species. About 40 of them commonly transmit plasmodium (malaria), of which there are 11 which infect humans.

[Whiffet]

It would be a bad idea. We would completely mess up ecosystems by doing that.

Ignoring that statement, silverfish. I hate those things. There are always a bunch in the house, and they're a pain.

[thubby]

They wouldn't. Oh, and you'd also have to say goodbye to alcohol and vinegar.

i seriously doubt such a huge and integral industry would just roll over, they'd at least try something.

ethanol can be made by other bacteria and after that vinegar is fine.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, there was the bakery that made leavened bread by literally injecting the dough with Carbon Dioxide. Yeast aren't bacteria, however.

[Coidzor]

Well, there was the bakery that made leavened bread by literally injecting the dough with Carbon Dioxide. Yeast aren't bacteria, however.

They're a fungus among us. :smallbiggrin:

[Zaydos]

But we can't destroy yeast. Think about the Science! The Science!!!!!

Seriously we use yeast to study biology a lot. It's one of, if not the, simplest eukaryotic organisms. Kind of like the eukaryotic e. coli.

Also it's not one species, there's over a thousand. Although baker's yeast, which is the important one (baking, alcohol production, Science!!!!!) is a single specific species.

[Johel]

Mosquitoes.

Now, does somebody have an idea of the ecological consequences ?

[Serpentine]

Major trouble for wetland ecosystems, as they're a major basis of the foodchain there.

[Eldan]

Many species of bird, a few species of fish, and certainly also frogs eat mainly mosquitoes. Then it moves on from there to everything that eats those.

[Asta Kask]

Wanting to eradicate mosquitoes are like wanting to eradicate rodents. There's a lot of species who fill closely related niches. Eradicating one probably won't have a lot of effects. All of them - and the system crashes.

[ImaginaryGirl]

Technically, you could use this magical button to get rid of various plagues. Like the HIV virus, Hepetitus, Malaria, etc. I think that'd be a fair use.

Edit: Assuming that viri are considered alive enough for the thought experiment. Bacteria would totally be fair game, though.

[Yanagi]

Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Especially the new drug-resistant strain.

Gleefully.

[Trekkin]

Aileruopoda melanoleuca.

If the button exists, it must be pressed; leaving it unpressed invites someone to remove a species that's integral to our own survival. Assuming that the button won't count a press for an extinct or nonexistent species as a press, the safest course of action is to remove a species already on the way out so that whatever damage is done was already being adapted to by the environment and pressing the button isn't introducing any new stress. If a species has to take the magic extermination bullet, why not pandas?

[CynicalAvocado]

sea lions.

i have my reasons

[ImaginaryGirl]

Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Especially the new drug-resistant strain.

Gleefully.

Oooo yeah. Knew I'd forgotten one.

[Brother Oni]

Technically, you could use this magical button to get rid of various plagues. Like the HIV virus, Hepetitus, Malaria, etc. I think that'd be a fair use.

Plague is caused by Yersinia Pestis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yersinia_pestis), a bacterium. :smalltongue:

Hepatitis has multiple causes (it's more a disease state like AIDS, rather than a single infective agent) and malaria has already been covered.


Reading up on my old notes, eradicating malaria in the same way that smallpox was eradicated may not be such a good idea.
There are certain 'disease' states where people are actually more resistant to infective agents, such as sickle cell and malaria. It's a careful balancing act - these people are ill in comparison to the average, but because of their environment, they're more likely to survive than average people.

By eradicating malaria completely, you'll reclassify millions of people as technically ill, since you've removed the reason for their adaptation.

[Moff Chumley]

I'm gonna go with the Humanitarian approach.

Humans

We have an equal chance of destroying the planet in a game of Global Thermonuclear War and running out of resources and simply abandoning it to a slow death. With us out of the way a better Sapient species might pop up and use our tech (not our weapons though) to fast-track their advancement and represent the Earth way better.

I'm pretty sure I disagree with absolutely everything in this post. Just throwin' that out there.


Or evil men?

...aaaaaaand this. I really hope you were kidding, or at least aware of the irony.


Hey, here's an idea! There's a species of opossum in South America that feeds on cane toads. Why don't we introduce that to Australia to get rid of the buggers!

Ten years later, we're breeding Land Whales to keep the elephant population under control. I say go for it.

[Lhurgyof]

Suppose you're granted one single use of a device which will utterly and forever wipe one, and only one, single species from the planet earth in an instant.
What do you eliminate?

Mosquitos!

[Recaiden]

Humans

We have an equal chance of destroying the planet in a game of Global Thermonuclear War and running out of resources and simply abandoning it to a slow death. With us out of the way a better Sapient species might pop up and use our tech (not our weapons though) to fast-track their advancement and represent the Earth way better.

Like those who come after are going to leave our weapons unused? No, if they get the chance they are going to nuke each other.


I wouldn't kill any species, and not because it might/probably does serve some ecological function. Why does one species not have a right to live? You could argue that the species is killing humans, but then you're just saying you'd rather see the species die than humans — which, quite frankly, is terribly egocentric. In fact, you would be killing more individuals over all, because multiple viruses/bacteria/parasites infect a host (usually) and the mortality rate is less than 100%.

More individuals would die, but they wouldn't be sentient or intelligent. Plus, they cause suffering, selfish, etc, etc.


Chupacabra

I only have 2 goats left, man.

While I understand where you're coming from, chupacabras are a vital part of the ecosystem in South America.


Japanese Giant Hornets man. ARe wonderful things that should be protected.


We could safely do away with virtually any man made species with minimal negative environmental impact. Like the africanized honey bees as an example. They would never have existed without our intervention, and the role they fulfill is already covered by the other species of honey bees out there.
On the other hand, the role of other honey bees is perfectly filled by the much more successful Africanized bees. :smallamused:

[thubby]

On the other hand, the role of other honey bees is perfectly filled by the much more successful Africanized bees. :smallamused:

i dont think the role of honey bees is to kick our butts.

[Coidzor]

On the other hand, the role of other honey bees is perfectly filled by the much more successful Africanized bees. :smallamused:

Why is this amusing?

[Rising Phoenix]

Humans aren't really that bad... Indeed man made habitats often have higher biodiversity counts then surrounding natural environments (e.g. rice fields, olive grows and farmlands... so long as they're not industrialized)

the problem with us is that there are way too many of us. Reduce our population half, keep it there and make sure we live sustainably and the problems should never be as bad as they are today.

[Kislath]

Great idea!
So, I take it you're volunteering for sterilization, then? How noble of you.
Now, if we can just find to way to mass-sterilize all the people we don't like... hmmm, looks like we need a NEW magic button

[Rising Phoenix]

Great idea!
So, I take it you're volunteering for sterilization, then? How noble of you.
Now, if we can just find to way to mass-sterilize all the people we don't like... hmmm, looks like we need a NEW magic button

I was just referring to the issue from a purely biological and scientific perspective. I never said how we should proceed and yes, it's horrible.

Though given the living conditions in some areas and the mass transport of goods and people these days nature may simply toss a nice virus at us to do the job.

[Serpentine]

Could check out the "voluntary extinction" movement.

[Rising Phoenix]

Could check out the "voluntary extinction" movement.

They the guys who refuse to reproduce? Heard of them, not interested in joining.

And now it seems that I've been branded as a misanthrope... which I am not. I am just pointing out that... wait... this comic sums up my view perfectly:

Edit: Is the comic viewable? my net's very slow atm...

Edit2: Removed the image tags as it contains the f word once... just to be on the safe side with forum regulations. it all together.

[Mono Vertigo]

Hey, I'd be perfectly willing of being sterilized - as much for personal reasons as, I guess, that voluntary extinction movement (though I should check it out to see what it's really about) - but I, as most women today are, am pressured to have babies, and people don't believe I could possibly have made up my mind about never having my own kids. It's absurdly difficult to get heard. :smalltongue:

Also, thanks for posting that comic, I'd never seen it before but I love it. :smallbiggrin:

[Serpentine]

Heh... Cool comic, and about sums up my views too, but you'd better Photoshop out the swear words :smallwink:
Some voluntary extinction people vow not to reproduce at all, but I think the more common version is that they decide not to reproduce more than would just replace themselves - one each, sorta thing.

[Rising Phoenix]

Hey, I'd be perfectly willing of being sterilized - as much for personal reasons as, I guess, that voluntary extinction movement (though I should check it out to see what it's really about) - but I, as most women today are, am pressured to have babies, and people don't believe I could possibly have made up my mind about never having my own kids. It's absurdly difficult to get heard. :smalltongue:

Also, thanks for posting that comic, I'd never seen it before but I love it. :smallbiggrin:

I wouldn't mind one or two kids (one to replace each of us) if me and my partner agreed that we wanted kids, but yeah not one of my top life priorities. Also I am surprised, my sisters were never pressured to have kids, but I guess it has to do with your background.

Glad you like the comic, one of my favourite ones.

Edit: Serpentine, it's not my comic, so I cannot edit it. Think I'll remove it all together.

[Serpentine]

You could just photoshop a rectangle or blur over it - I've done it for showing naughty pictures before. But ah wells. Got a link to the Deviant?

[Rising Phoenix]

You could just photoshop a rectangle or blur over it - I've done it for showing naughty pictures before. But ah wells. Got a link to the Deviant?

PM sent :).

[Serpentine]

Heeeeey. I know that dude! It's the SatW dude!

[Rising Phoenix]

Heeeeey. I know that dude! It's the SatW dude!

"SatW"?:smallconfused:

Her art's generally amazing

[Serpentine]

Scandinavia and the World. (http://satwcomic.com/)

[Eldan]

Heeeeey. I know that dude! It's the SatW dude!

Actually, from the comments on the comics I've read, I think it's a woman.

[Admiral Squish]

Waitwait, wait. What happens to the species if said button is pushed/ Do they all spontaneously disappear, or do they just die on the spot. Killing all of pretty much any species would drastically alter the environment, partially due to the fact they we end up with thousands and thousands of dead bides laying around... rotting... Fouling water supplies, spreading disease, encouraging a sudden explosion of scavenger and detrivore populations.

[Serpentine]

Actually, from the comments on the comics I've read, I think it's a woman.Pffft, dude's gender-neutral :smalltongue:
I actually thought that too, but dude's such a nice word...

[Rising Phoenix]

Pffft, dude's gender-neutral :smalltongue:
I actually thought that too, but dude's such a nice word...

You're Australian heritage's showing :P or maybe it should be hippy? who cares :P

[Eldan]

Guess now my German-as-a-first/second-language is showing. My first thought was "But "the" sounds like a male article, so "the dude" is male!", before realizing how silly that was in English. :smalltongue:

[Rising Phoenix]

Guess now my German-as-a-first/second-language is showing. My first thought was "But "the" sounds like a male article, so "the dude" is male!", before realizing how silly that was in English. :smalltongue:

I generally don't call my female friends 'dudes' though they call each other that sometimes as in "Dude! Why did you do that?!"

Also we're derailing the thread... back to um species elimination...

[Brother Oni]

Though given the living conditions in some areas and the mass transport of goods and people these days nature may simply toss a nice virus at us to do the job.

What (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome) makes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H5N1) you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_death) think (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_great_plague) nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu) hasn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholera_outbreaks_and_pandemics) tried (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_pandemic) already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonine_Plague)?

[Kislath]

SO true, Oni, and the trend is sure to continue. The newest attempt of Mad Cow is so scary that we're not even allowed to talk about it in the Media very much. It's gonna be the BIG one, no doubt, and it's already too late to try to stop it, which I suspect is why they don't.

[Rising Phoenix]

What (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome) makes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H5N1) you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_death) think (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_great_plague) nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu) hasn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholera_outbreaks_and_pandemics) tried (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_pandemic) already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonine_Plague)?

I should have said that it has happened it the past and that it will happen again. Thanks for providing all these examples :)

Kislath: For Mad Cow disease just don't eat cow meat, simple as that. Mad cow disease is a type of kuru. An interesting malady that is caused by proteins folding up incorrectly. The only way to get kuru is to eat infected meat.

[Brother Oni]

Kislath: For Mad Cow disease just don't eat cow meat, simple as that. Mad cow disease is a type of kuru. An interesting malady that is caused by proteins folding up incorrectly. The only way to get kuru is to eat infected meat.

It's caused by protein fragments entering the cell, causing the mis-folding of proteins in the cell, thus propogating the protein fragments.

Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease isn't technically an attempt by nature to wipe us out, it's more a result of poor farming practices such as grinding up dead cows to feed to the other cows.

However the issue isn't just avoid eating cow meat, it's avoiding anything that could have been infected. Prions are remarkably resiliant to standard cleaning regimes because there's so little to break or deform on their structure to stop them working.

[Rising Phoenix]

It's caused by protein fragments entering the cell, causing the mis-folding of proteins in the cell, thus propogating the protein fragments.

Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease isn't technically an attempt by nature to wipe us out, it's more a result of poor farming practices such as grinding up dead cows to feed to the other cows.

However the issue isn't just avoid eating cow meat, it's avoiding anything that could have been infected. Prions are remarkably resiliant to standard cleaning regimes because there's so little to break or deform on their structure to stop them working.

Thanks for that. :)

[Serpentine]

Mad cow disease is a type of kuru. An interesting malady that is caused by proteins folding up incorrectly. The only way to get kuru is to eat infected meat.More accurate, I think, to say that kuru and mad cow disease are the same sort of disease - prion diseases.

[Kislath]

tsk,tsk,tsk... If avoiding it were as easy as not ingesting it, we'd be perfectly safe.

[Alchemistmerlin]

Halyomorpha halys, the brown marmorated stink bug.



No natural predators in my portion of the US, total infestation.


It would collapse some portion of the ecosystem in Asia...I'm not too broken up about it, I'm selfish like that.

[Pie Guy]

Fire. It nearly burned down my house.

"Pie Guy, you crazy/silly/devilish-rogue of a person," you say, "fire isn't a living object! It doesn't count."

Doesn't it?

Think about it. Fire reproduces exponentially with the fuel it has available. If you put fire in a room filled with gasoline, it will expand greatly until it runs out of fuel and most of it dies. How is this unlike an organism such as a bacteria entering a boom and bust cycle?

"But there's no cells or evidence of it being alive."

Well, how can we know that? I've tried to test this, and everytime I put a flame in a microscope, the glass melts before I can get any data.

"Doing away with all fire would destroy most ways we have to cook our foods so we don't starve or get food poisoning, not to mention-"

Induction cookers.

"But we couldn't smelt the ore to make enough induction cookers! And you didn't let me finish!"

I have an old one you could borrow if you want.

"That wasn't my question!"

So what is your question?

"What do we do if we don't have enough induction cookers!"

Jeez! I only had an old one, I can't solve all your problems.

"Screw this, I'm leaving."

Yeah? I don't want you around here anyway!
Self-righteous pyrophile...


And this is what happens when I post after one AM. Goodnight everyone!

[Rising Phoenix]

tsk,tsk,tsk... If avoiding it were as easy as not ingesting it, we'd be perfectly safe.

Ok... I'll bite, if we avoid eating infecting foods and that is the only known method of prions getting around (and as far as I know there's no evidence to the contrary) how will it be a severe threat? :smallsmile:

[Kislath]

I reeaally want to tell you everything, but I can't. It's a felony to even discuss it in a forum like this. ( hint- Only known method? Hardly. ) If you really dare to know, then we'll need an alternate form of communication. In the meantime, let's quit derailing this thread.

[Caewil]

{Scrubbed}

[Borgh]

{Scrubbed}

Transmission though shared blood seems more likely although I don't see how this could be a fellony to discuss.

[Serpentine]

Erm... Wikipedia lists only ingestion (directly or indirectly - apparently it can turn up in manure used to fertilise plants) and inhalation as transmission modes.

[Kislath]

Kissing, sex, inhalation of a shocking number of things, getting it in a cut, or in your eye or nose, or from blood transfusion, a trip to a dentist, contact with your pets ( petfood ), spit, eating in a restaurant that uses real dishes and flatware; and it only gets worse from there.

[Serpentine]

Sauce plox.

[Borgh]

Sauce plox.

for me it was just this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeldt%E2%80%93Jakob_disease#Transmission)

it lists:
1. ingestion
2. grafts and other forms of semi-ingestion
3. Harvested Hormones
4. random mutation
5. Hereditary
6. dirty surgical tools
7. blood transfusions (I count blood-blood contact here)

[Serpentine]

So biology, and direct physical transferral. Not seeing kissing, sex, basic contact or most of the rest.

[Caewil]

Given the number of people who have that disease, it's not very worrying. As well, we use bacteria to produce hormones nowadays, so no need to worry about getting it from those.

[Borgh]

Kissing, sex, inhalation of a shocking number of things, getting it in a cut, or in your eye or nose, or from blood transfusion, a trip to a dentist, contact with your pets ( petfood ), spit, eating in a restaurant that uses real dishes and flatware; and it only gets worse from there.

The ones I bolded seem rather far fetched, are we talking about the same thing here? your list sounds more like the one for Pfeiffer's disease, which although nasty, is not a prion disease and not usually dangerous.

[Rising Phoenix]

for me it was just this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeldt%E2%80%93Jakob_disease#Transmission)

it lists:
1. ingestion
2. grafts and other forms of semi-ingestion
3. Harvested Hormones
4. random mutation
5. Hereditary
6. dirty surgical tools
7. blood transfusions (I count blood-blood contact here)

So basically nil as its easily controllable (barring the mass use of dead cows as feed and fertilizer).

[Brother Oni]

So basically nil as its easily controllable (barring the mass use of dead cows as feed and fertilizer).

Not just that. Since most cattle are slaughtered using the bolt to the head method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_bolt), a single infected cow can contaminate the bolt, which in turn can contaminate all animals subsequently slaughtered with that bolt gun, and all meat subsequently obtained.

Since an animal can be infected but not be presenting symptoms yet, keeping it out of the food chain requires a blanket exclusion of any suspect animals.

However you can only start excluding animals once you've realised there's an outbreak and by then it may be too late.

However this is for the most common BSE transmission into people - CJD and vCJD has it own set of issues as people have linked to earlier.

[Kislath]

And don't forget the saws, either, along with every other surface the meat touches.
Oni mentioned it already, but prion contamination is exceedingly difficult, actually nigh impossible, to remove by standard cleaning methods. It is also very much saliva-borne. This is a bad combination, to say the least.

[Borgh]

And don't forget the saws, either, along with every other surface the meat touches.
Oni mentioned it already, but prion contamination is exceedingly difficult, actually nigh impossible, to remove by standard cleaning methods. It is also very much saliva-borne. This is a bad combination, to say the least.

ok, I admit rwslaughterhouses seem like a place for transmission but still: sauce plox.

[Brother Oni]

ok, I admit rwslaughterhouses seem like a place for transmission but still: sauce plox.

Source for what? Transmission via slaughterhouses or prion resilience to standard cleaning methods?

Things are not as bad as Kislath makes them out to be - as we've both said, prions are hard to get rid of using standard cleaning methods, but there are new cleaning methods that will get rid of prions (http://www.memphis.edu/ehs/pdfs/deconprions.pdf) (and pretty much anything organic barring certain spores/cysts).

Bear in mind that they've been working on these new techniques since 2005 according to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4736295.stm).

However the issue is getting these alternate regimes in place in time to stop an outbreak and making them cost effective enough for the meat industry to adopt them. True the government could force them to use the updated regimes via legislation, but that's too political to discuss here.

[Borgh]

Source for what? Transmission via slaughterhouses or prion resilience to standard cleaning methods?

Things are not as bad as Kislath makes them out to be - as we've both said, prions are hard to get rid of using standard cleaning methods, but there are new cleaning methods that will get rid of prions (http://www.memphis.edu/ehs/pdfs/deconprions.pdf) (and pretty much anything organic barring certain spores/cysts).

Bear in mind that they've been working on these new techniques since 2005 according to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4736295.stm).

However the issue is getting these alternate regimes in place in time to stop an outbreak and making them cost effective enough for the meat industry to adopt them. True the government could force them to use the updated regimes via legislation, but that's too political to discuss here.


nice to know there are now methods to clean prions away but I was talking about Kislath and his claim it can be salvia (and as such, pretty much any body fluid) transmitted.

[Serpentine]

The source call was for most of this:
Kissing, sex, inhalation of a shocking number of things, getting it in a cut, or in your eye or nose, or from blood transfusion, a trip to a dentist, contact with your pets ( petfood ), spit, eating in a restaurant that uses real dishes and flatware; and it only gets worse from there.

[Kislath]

It's not my claim, it's a fact, but one that you'll rarely hear about in our otherwise ostensibly free media.
This is where I have to stop. I've said too much already, and am not going to jail just to prove something to a bunch of strangers online. I know I will be vindicated in time, though.

[Serpentine]

Uh huh.
I'm afraid you don't really get to come and say "this is fact" and expect to be believed without even a single other source.

[Recaiden]

And insinuating that some shadowy prion organization is out to get you is not proof (would make a great story though). It's a terrible disease, but discussion of it isn't regulated. Too bad it's not a valid target for the button.

[Serpentine]

Prions are scary, but I don't think they're sentient... Yet.

[Kislath]

I SAID we need alternate communication forms to go into any real detail, and I meant it. Don't believe there's a clampdown? Try getting on the air, or even in the newspaper, with a submission on the subject and see how far you get.

[Serpentine]

Colour me skeptical. I'm curious, though, so please feel free to PM me.

[Recaiden]

I have no problem believing that they are, and would appreciate a PM as well. Although I do not yet accept that there is a clampdown, it could be true.

[Kislath]

It occurs to me that many of you are foreigners. Here in the USA, MadCow/CJD is considered an agricultural issue, and slamming the agriculture system is absolutely a crime. Mere possession of a madcow test kit will land you in prison.

[Serpentine]

Again: Sauce plox.

[Worira]

Mmm, shadowy prion cabals. Part of a balanced breakfast.

[Borgh]

It occurs to me that many of you are foreigners. Here in the USA, MadCow/CJD is considered an agricultural issue, and slamming the agriculture system is absolutely a crime. Mere possession of a madcow test kit will land you in prison.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=illegality+of+mad+cow+disease+kits

yeah. I just stopped bellieving anything you said.

[Serpentine]

...you started? :smallconfused: But, to be fair, at least a quick look at that doesn't come up with anything that says one way or another...
edit: This (http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32414.pdf) might cover it. Someone more interested than I can summarise it for us :smalltongue:

[Eldan]

I'll have to include this one in my next conspiracy theory game.

I mean, who cares about Mars bases. This is serious.

[Rising Phoenix]

...you started? :smallconfused: But, to be fair, at least a quick look at that doesn't come up with anything that says one way or another...
edit: This (http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32414.pdf) might cover it. Someone more interested than I can summarise it for us :smalltongue:

"This report examines the legal authority of the USDA’s
Animal and Plant Health Protection Service to regulate all testing for BSE,
particularly the voluntary testing of 100% of a private company’s animals with rapid
test kits and the USDA’s recent rejection of Creekstone’s application to test all of the
cattle it processes for BSE. This analysis encompasses some of the legal arguments
that have and might come to fruition in Creekstone lawsuit.
This report does not discuss the possible role that the Food and Drug
Administration may play in the regulation of BSE testing and surveillance. For
information on the USDA and legislative activities relating to BSE, see CRS Report
RL32199, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, or “Mad Cow Disease”):
Current and Proposed Safeguards, by Geoffrey S. Becker. This report will be
updated as warranted."

I see nothing saying that it's illegal to talk about it... Though I can't be bothered reading the entire thing.

And yes, Eldan, a conspiracy theory involving beef would definitely be a good campaign :P

[Asta Kask]

I've got my skeptical network working on it. If they can take out of their busy Minecraft schedule.

[Eldan]

Hmm. So, we have the Illuminati, the Greys, the CIA, the Martians, the Lizard men, the Mole men, the NWO, the prions...

Yeah, this works.

[Rising Phoenix]

Hmm. So, we have the Illuminati, the Greys, the CIA, the Martians, the Lizard men, the Mole men, the NWO, the prions...

Yeah, this works.

We need a 'like' button :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

They do already sound pretty synonym, just the name of them.

edit: Pretty synonym? WTF? Dammit, now I can't remember the word I meant to use...

[Brother Oni]

edit:[/I] This (http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32414.pdf) might cover it. Someone more interested than I can summarise it for us :smalltongue:

A quick summarisation from scanning it (no commentary please):

BSE outbreak in the US. US Department of Agriculture suggests a surveillance level of screen cattle.
Other countries not happy with this level of screening and want complete screening of all animals and smack all US beef exports with a blanket ban.

Company which specialises in premium quality beef requests permission to undertake voluntary full screening.
USDA says no, Company tries to do it privately anyway, USDA tries to place BSE testing kits under their juristriction, which limits their use on animals intended for human consumption. Company sues the USDA, which was the current state of play when the paper was written in 2006.


What Kislath says may be true currently (could you send me a PM as well please?) and what he actually means is that BSE kits are illegal to use on mass screening cattle intended for human consumption, not owning BSE kits are illegal.

It otherwise looks highly political and probably not suitable for discussion here though.

That said, the CDC have a page on CJD (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/cjd/), thus while there may be issues with BSE (as it's an agricultural issue), there's no such restriction on CJD as it's a human health issue.

The British HPA (our version of the CDC) also has a page on CJD with recent updates (http://www.hpa.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=HPAweb%2FPage%2FHPAwebAutoListName&cid=1153999752025&p=1153999752025&pagename=HPAwebWrapper&searchmode=simple&searchterm=cjd&go=Search).

There also appears to be no restriction on kits, testing or otherwise discussing it in the UK, according to the DEFRA website (http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/bse/) (British version of the USDA).



edit: Pretty synonym? WTF? Dammit, now I can't remember the word I meant to use...

Synonymous? :smalltongue:

[Asta Kask]

synonymous?
squamous?

[Serpentine]

More like "scary" or "hardcore", actually.
Yeah...

[Brother Oni]

More like "scary" or "hardcore", actually.
Yeah...

Intimidating? Terrifying? Disquieting?

NWO and CIA are the only ones that are vaguely scary sounding in my opinion. The others sound like something from a video game or fantasy novel.

[Serpentine]

Well... Yeah, basically. "Prion" sounds like an invading alien race or a D&D monster or something.
...
Someone needs to stat up a brain-eating parasitic abomination (that isn't a mindflayer) and call it a prion.

[Asta Kask]

More like "scary" or "hardcore", actually.
Yeah...

Intimidating?

Anyway, for these and other conspiracies I recommend the Conspiracy Skeptic. (http://www.yrad.com/cs/)

[Tyndmyr]

Suppose you're granted one single use of a device which will utterly and forever wipe one, and only one, single species from the planet earth in an instant.
What do you eliminate?

If there are no additional restrictions on this, I select humans, then blackmail the entire human race.

[Worira]

More like "scary" or "hardcore", actually.
Yeah...

Sinister.whitext

[Kislath]

Oni is correct, as usual. There is no way to continue this without getting extremely political, since politics are the very heart of the matter. Feel free to declare yourselves the winners of this thread, and then die horribly, needlessly, and far too young.

[Borgh]

Kislath: The thing I asked for a source for (transmission of KJD or a similar prions disease though saliva) can be openly answered without delving into politics in any way shape or form through a link to a scientific article or reasonably neutral newspaper.

Also: the "no politics" rule does not apply to PMs, so feel free to PM me (and serp and oni since they asked too) with anything you like.

until that we only have your word for it, and this being the internet, is not worth much.

Note that if you think I am bashing you this is not really the case. Your word is a as valuable as anyones but I just want to see a source.

Regards, Borgh

[Serpentine]

Sinister.Actually... Yeah, I think that's exactly what I was going to say. Nearly explains why I wrote synonym, too.
Oni is correct, as usual. There is no way to continue this without getting extremely political, since politics are the very heart of the matter. Feel free to declare yourselves the winners of this thread, and then die horribly, needlessly, and far too young.Giving a source for all those methods of transmission you claimed is not political. As the US appears to be the only place where there's those restrictions on testing, I find it highly unlikely that there's any worldwide prion conspiracy, and am still waiting to see any evidence of it beyond your own claims.
Also: the "no politics" rule does not apply to PMs, so feel free to PM me (and serp and oni since they asked too) with anything you like.Actually the rules do still apply to PMs, and if you get reported in them you'll still get the infractions as normal. They're just highly unlikely to check unless you get reported.

[Brother Oni]

Giving a source for all those methods of transmission you claimed is not political. As the US appears to be the only place where there's those restrictions on testing, I find it highly unlikely that there's any worldwide prion conspiracy, and am still waiting to see any evidence of it beyond your own claims.

Taking Kislath on good faith, it may well be that because of his job or position, he may not be able to tell us without threat of legal punishment.

For example, I work in the pharmaceutical industry and there's a confidentiality clause written into my contract that can get me fired and sued if I accidentally disclose certain things.

[Serpentine]

Then he should say so. Easy fixed. I have seen nothing in anything he's said thus far to indicate that's the case, though.

[Worira]

Not to mention that it would be unethical, unenforceable, and pointless to have a non-disclosure agreement requiring employees to avoid mention of certain transmission vectors of a well-known disease occurring in multiple countries.

[Kislath]

It's called a gag order, and I've already violated it more than I planned. You want sources, but most of the ones I had have been censored, scrubbed, deleted, or sanitized and I can't search for new ones without big trouble.
Long story short? I probably HAVE this disease, and I stirred up a lot of trouble six years ago from it.

[Worira]

Yeah, if you'd had it 6 years ago, you'd be dead. So, tempting an explanation as a degenerative neurological disorder is for this conversation, I'm going to call BS on that one. Bioavailability of soil-bound prions aside.

[Borgh]

Ok, then you should have said so.

I wish you well and the best of luck.

[Serpentine]

If that's true, then I'm sorry for you. But as it stands, we have no reason to believe you. If you're telling the truth, well, I feel for you. Our disbelief must be frustrating. But it's necessary.

[Brother Oni]

Yeah, if you'd had it 6 years ago, you'd be dead. So, tempting an explanation as a degenerative neurological disorder is for this conversation, I'm going to call BS on that one. Bioavailability of soil-bound prions aside.

Except that the incubation time of CJD and vCJD is unknown.

Data from the closest related human disease, kuru, suggests that it could be from 50 to 60 years (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/45851.php).

Current thinking suggests anywhere from 10-16 years up to 30 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1235241.stm), depending on your genetics and the type of CJD you catch (there's about 4 strains classified by vector and cause).

[Borgh]

by the way, aren't we supposed to be talking about what species we want to exterminate?

If we could see other realities down the trousers of time I'd like to exterminate a buch of things and see what happens, especially humans (if the extermination was painless that is), just to see what happens.

[Asta Kask]

There's some small, innocuous-looking creature some 300 million years ago that was (probably) the ancestor of all vertebrates. I wonder if it would have arisen through convergent evolution or if there would have been some alternate solution. Tricordates, for instance.

[Kislath]

Thanks again, Oni. The incubation time is one of the worst things about this stuff-- it spreads like crazy before anyone notices.
Anyway, let's shake this thread up a bit-- Assuming now there WAS such a button, how would we decide which species to zap? How to make a case?

[Asta Kask]

Does it harm us?

Will getting rid of it cause more harm to us?

I'm all for anthropocentrism here.

[Skavensrule]

The Red Imported Fire Ant would be my choice. Especially if you could limit the extermination to areas where the thing is not native. This little ant has destroyed dozens of species in the USA and threatend hundreds possibly thousands of others worldwide. The Horned Lizard eats ants and has still been driven to near extinction in some areas because of this pest.

[Coidzor]

Does it harm us?

Will getting rid of it cause more harm to us?

I'm all for anthropocentrism here.

That's the only appropriate context we can take it in, after all.

[Phae Nymna]

Human Immunodeficiency Virus, but if I had to pick a species of animal it would be sea snakes.

[Serpentine]

But sea snakes are coooooool! D:

[Borgh]

But sea snakes are coooooool! D:

not to mention they are one of the few species in Australia that does not actively try to kill you (apart from a few of the sheep)

[DragonOfUndeath]

not to mention they are one of the few species in Australia that does not actively try to kill you (apart from a few of the sheep)

Nah, there are more, like... um
Kangaroos? no
Bugs? no
Toads? no
Bears? no
Lizards? no

Yeah, save the Seasnakes and some types of sheep, the Lucky Country needs some non-lethal animals

[Serpentine]

:sigh:
How about our main wildlife: small furry mammals and small brown birds, most of which is also endangered?

Also: shame on you, Dragon. "Bears" indeed :smallannoyed:

[DragonOfUndeath]

:sigh:
How about our main wildlife: small furry mammals and small brown birds, most of which is also endangered?

Also: shame on you, Dragon. "Bears" indeed :smallannoyed:

The reason they are endangered are 'cause of the lack of lethality involved. If they were more lethal then they wouldn't be as endangered.

Most foreigners keep referring to drop bears/koalas as bears, I've given up correcting them and just started calling them bears when I think non-aussies are listening.

[Worira]

Koalas are bearkin, regardless of what them fancy scientists in their ivory towers say.

[Asta Kask]

:sigh:
How about our main wildlife: small furry mammals and small brown birds, most of which is also endangered?

Also: shame on you, Dragon. "Bears" indeed :smallannoyed:

Also Kookaburras. Which are awesome.

[Rising Phoenix]

Also Kookaburras. Which are awesome.

You've obvioisly never approached an active Kookaburra nest... or an Australian Magpie's nest... or Masked Lapwing's... Or Greater Crested Tern's... or a brood of ducklings... or a Black Swan Nest... or an amorous pair of Silver Gulls... or a Magpie Lark chick... or an Eastern Yellow Robin nest... Yeah... I think that's all the Australian Bird species I've been attacked by... Thank goodness they don't involve any raptors... yet :smalltongue:

Edit: Oh got another two: Eurasian Coot and Purple Swamphens, Fairy Tern, Little Tern...

[Asta Kask]

Did it grab you in its beak and try to smash you against a nearby rock?

[Rising Phoenix]

Did it grab you in its beak and try to smash you against a nearby rock?

That would have been fascinating if it had happened...:smalltongue: Unfortunately Kookas don't grow that big... They are very easy to tame though, they visit our balcony fairly frequently for bacon scraps.:smallsmile:

[Asta Kask]

Must be lovely to wake up in the morning to. You should always start the day with a laugh.

[Serpentine]

Kookaburras sound very cool. Beautiful voices. World's biggest kingfishers, what's more. My dad used to have one that turned up for treats...

[Solaris]

I'm gonna go with the Humanitarian approach.

Humans

We have an equal chance of destroying the planet in a game of Global Thermonuclear War and running out of resources and simply abandoning it to a slow death. With us out of the way a better Sapient species might pop up and use our tech (not our weapons though) to fast-track their advancement and represent the Earth way better.

Here's my standard reply to such sentiments:
Good plan, start with yourself. Oh, wait, you mean everyone other than you? Or did you just not think this thing through?
I'm leaving off the part where I actively try to push the anti-human character into offing himself, though. That's just mean-spirited, and it doesn't work so well outside of face-to-face interaction.

You're deluded if you think another sapient species would be any better than we are. Dolphins, the next runner-up? Yeah, they're psychopaths. Gorillas? Not as nice as you'd think. Elephants? Randomly decide to murder everything smaller than them every once in a while (kinda like... humans!). Nature is cruel. Nature is coldhearted. Nature does not care. We are what we are because we had to compete with the rest of the natural world. You're upset because we're just better at it than everything else. Hell, looking at our competition, I'd say we are the 'better' species. How many other creatures on Earth routinely care for animals not of their own species?

We are the best thing nature has produced. We are the fittest creatures on Earth, and yet we care about other animals. The world would be the worse for our absence.


I'd reverse-engineer that ebil button and make it into an species-out of extinction button.

hmm and now? T-rex? cool but no real purpose. Maybe those giant manitees, not purposefull either but then at least we won't have a jurassic parc.

That's my favorite answer of this thread thus far.


Reading up on my old notes, eradicating malaria in the same way that smallpox was eradicated may not be such a good idea.
There are certain 'disease' states where people are actually more resistant to infective agents, such as sickle cell and malaria. It's a careful balancing act - these people are ill in comparison to the average, but because of their environment, they're more likely to survive than average people.

By eradicating malaria completely, you'll reclassify millions of people as technically ill, since you've removed the reason for their adaptation.

How is that at all a bad thing? Your logic here seems to be "This would be bad because unhealthy people who have a small advantage would lose that advantage - never mind all of those healthy people who would not die from malaria."


What (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome) makes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H5N1) you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_death) think (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_great_plague) nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu) hasn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholera_outbreaks_and_pandemics) tried (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_pandemic) already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonine_Plague)?

We came within a couple really bad years of becoming extinct. The Toba impact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory), don'tcha know. Nature started it. We're just finishing it.

[Rising Phoenix]

We are the best thing nature has produced. We are the fittest creatures on Earth, and yet we care about other animals. The world would be the worse for our absence.


Most of the things you say are correct. However, the above is not. It is very human-centered as you don't explain why we are the 'best' things produced.

In evolution so long as you can survive and propagate your genes you are successful and thus 'you are the best thing nature has produced' since you've achieved your biological role: propagate your own genes. So we are no more successful then all of the other species existing today in this regard. (and will 99.99% go extinct as all of previous life forms have done so)

In terms of population, colonizing and exploiting the planet we are successful. However, we are not the most successful nor the most populous, look at all the species exploiting us, look at beetles or better still bacteria.

In terms of sustaining our population... um yeah... we fail hard at that as we destroy the majority of ecological services that sustain us... and we cannot (yet) survive independently of the rest of the ecosystem. Photosynthetic organisms are probably the best fit for this.

In terms of 'Intelligence' if you consider 'intelligence' to be human-like intelligence then yes you are correct. However, a cat's brain is very good for the cat's needs too, it's a different kind of 'intelligence'. But I digress, there's no other life form on this planet that has achieved what we have (not that they care), so I'll give you this.

So to make a long story short: We like to think that we are the best things created because we can think.

Most of the species we are trying to save ('care about') our going extinct because of our processes. We try to save them for entirely selfish reasons. If humans did not exist then they would eventually go the way of the Dodo when natural chances dictated.

And once we go extinct, nothing will care.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

Mosquitoes for entirely selfish reasons, i.e. being able to walk around in my own garden wearing shorts (I live in tropical climes).

[Brother Oni]

How is that at all a bad thing? Your logic here seems to be "This would be bad because unhealthy people who have a small advantage would lose that advantage - never mind all of those healthy people who would not die from malaria."


Mainly due to malaria not being the same disease as smallpox.

We've lived with malaria for so long that we have started to adapt to it, so just simply eradicating it completely has just nullified the genetic adaptations of a group of people.

So once we've eradicated malaria and fixed all the people with sickle cell, what other disease can we look at? How about cystic fibrosis, it's a well known condition, for which I know there's a gene therapy currently in clinical trials.
After that Down's syndrome, maybe? Another genetic disease which is well characterised, so we can fix that, oh but it's a little trickier than sickle cell and CF so we'll have to do a little screening and maybe introduce some restrictions on who can have children, you know little things, for the greater good of the human race.
Due to our advancing knowledge of how the human genome works after our previous successes, we find out that children who have this particular trait do better in school. Well that's just discriminatory and unfair against children who don't have this trait, so to give everybody an equal footing, we can tweak everybody's children to have the same trait...

Basically I see it as the edge of a slippery slope, that we have to be very careful about going down due to the spectre of eugenics.

I'm entirely for controlling malaria and advancing our control of it so that it's no more harmful than a common cold, but ethics of wiping out an an entire species aside (malaria is caused by a protozoan, compared to smallpox which is a virus), wiping it out completely is something I'd have to take a long hard look at.

This is aside to things like loss of genetic diversity in the species, which is again something we should keep an eye on.



We came within a couple really bad years of becoming extinct. The Toba impact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory), don'tcha know. Nature started it. We're just finishing it.

There's a difference between a natural disaster, like a volcanic eruption, and a pandemic. A pandemic is caused by a disease, which has developed in close contact with large masses of people living close together.

We can essentially point at a volcanic eruption which wipes us out and say "that's not fair!", while we can't do the same with a disease because we're directly responsible for its development.

[Rising Phoenix]

Mainly due to malaria not being the same disease as smallpox.

We've lived with malaria for so long that we have started to adapt to it, so just simply eradicating it completely has just nullified the genetic adaptations of a group of people.

So once we've eradicated malaria and fixed all the people with sickle cell, what other disease can we look at? How about cystic fibrosis, it's a well known condition, for which I know there's a gene therapy currently in clinical trials.
After that Down's syndrome, maybe? Another genetic disease which is well characterised, so we can fix that, oh but it's a little trickier than sickle cell and CF so we'll have to do a little screening and maybe introduce some restrictions on who can have children, you know little things, for the greater good of the human race.
Due to our advancing knowledge of how the human genome works after our previous successes, we find out that children who have this particular trait do better in school. Well that's just discriminatory and unfair against children who don't have this trait, so to give everybody an equal footing, we can tweak everybody's children to have the same trait...

Basically I see it as the edge of a slippery slope, that we have to be very careful about going down due to the spectre of eugenics.

I'm entirely for controlling malaria and advancing our control of it so that it's no more harmful than a common cold, but ethics of wiping out an an entire species aside (malaria is caused by a protozoan, compared to smallpox which is a virus), wiping it out completely is something I'd have to take a long hard look at.

This is aside to things like loss of genetic diversity in the species, which is again something we should keep an eye on.


My thoughts more or less. What do you think on the now endangered human guinea worm? A horrible beast teetering on the edge of extermination.

[Solaris]

Mainly due to malaria not being the same disease as smallpox.

We've lived with malaria for so long that we have started to adapt to it, so just simply eradicating it completely has just nullified the genetic adaptations of a group of people.

Yes, but saying "We should keep malaria around to justify their adaptations" is kinda like saying "We should keep the planet warm to justify dark skin". It's just goofy.
Unless you think we're talking about retroactively exterminating malaria, in which case... uh, those adaptations would never have propagated to begin with. Overall, win for the human race because the people with those adaptations wouldn't have them.


So once we've eradicated malaria and fixed all the people with sickle cell, what other disease can we look at? How about cystic fibrosis, it's a well known condition, for which I know there's a gene therapy currently in clinical trials.
After that Down's syndrome, maybe? Another genetic disease which is well characterised, so we can fix that, oh but it's a little trickier than sickle cell and CF so we'll have to do a little screening and maybe introduce some restrictions on who can have children, you know little things, for the greater good of the human race.
Due to our advancing knowledge of how the human genome works after our previous successes, we find out that children who have this particular trait do better in school. Well that's just discriminatory and unfair against children who don't have this trait, so to give everybody an equal footing, we can tweak everybody's children to have the same trait...

Basically I see it as the edge of a slippery slope, that we have to be very careful about going down due to the spectre of eugenics.

One of these things is not like the others. I'm not talking about exterminating anybody. I'm talking about improving the quality of life for countless people. I've heard thrown around that half of the number of people who died, died of malaria. You're trying to justify keeping it with swishy logic.


I'm entirely for controlling malaria and advancing our control of it so that it's no more harmful than a common cold, but ethics of wiping out an an entire species aside (malaria is caused by a protozoan, compared to smallpox which is a virus), wiping it out completely is something I'd have to take a long hard look at.

This is aside to things like loss of genetic diversity in the species, which is again something we should keep an eye on.

You're cool with wiping out smallpox, but not cool with wiping out malaria just because one is a virus and the other a protozoan? My brain, it is confused.

Eh, if we're able to tweak genes so that we can breed super-kids, I'm pretty sure natural genetic diversity suddenly becomes less of a problem. In the real world, though, it's kinda like saying we gotta save the Chinese spotted lemur to preserve genetic diversity because maybe it might be useful someday. No, it's worse - the hypothetical Chinese spotted lemur isn't actually a problem for thousands upon thousands of people. Sickle cell anemia is.


There's a difference between a natural disaster, like a volcanic eruption, and a pandemic. A pandemic is caused by a disease, which has developed in close contact with large masses of people living close together.

We can essentially point at a volcanic eruption which wipes us out and say "that's not fair!", while we can't do the same with a disease because we're directly responsible for its development.

Not to be comparing nature to a rapist, but that's kinda like saying a rape victim is responsible for the actions of her assailant. Nowadays, when we understand how disease works? Sure, collectively we bear responsibility for modern pandemics that get out of hand. Back in the day, though, when most of those pandemics happened? That's a negative, Ghost Rider, humanity bore no responsibility for those pandemics popping off because they did not know how to prevent them.


Most of the things you say are correct. However, the above is not. It is very human-centered as you don't explain why we are the 'best' things produced.

I admit bias.


In evolution so long as you can survive and propagate your genes you are successful and thus 'you are the best thing nature has produced' since you've achieved your biological role: propagate your own genes. So we are no more successful then all of the other species existing today in this regard. (and will 99.99% go extinct as all of previous life forms have done so)

Kinda like saying "I'm going to die someday, and because of that nothing I do matters". I'll make the argument that while Homo sapiens will eventually go extinct, so long as we leave heirs - whether they be our direct descendants, sapient robots, or merely a species we uplifted - we were successful. Life is a continuum, and the concept of a species something we created.


In terms of population, colonizing and exploiting the planet we are successful. However, we are not the most successful nor the most populous, look at all the species exploiting us, look at beetles or better still bacteria.

Bear in mind how many of those species still exist solely at our sufferance. We've wiped out entire species simply because they were inconvenient. How many other species can compete with us on that scale? How many other species have the potential to colonize other worlds?
Now, sure, other species have us beat by biomass. That's a given. They got a mob, but they're not doing anything with it except living. We actively alter our world, creating new species both directly and indirectly.


In terms of sustaining our population... um yeah... we fail hard at that as we destroy the majority of ecological services that sustain us... and we cannot (yet) survive independently of the rest of the ecosystem. Photosynthetic organisms are probably the best fit for this.

Seven billions disagree. Back in the seventies they said we would soon be extinct, and that the world couldn't possibly sustain us for another twenty years. Forty years later, our population is greater than every before and our world has significantly more unused production value left in it.


In terms of 'Intelligence' if you consider 'intelligence' to be human-like intelligence then yes you are correct. However, a cat's brain is very good for the cat's needs too, it's a different kind of 'intelligence'. But I digress, there's no other life form on this planet that has achieved what we have (not that they care), so I'll give you this.

So to make a long story short: We like to think that we are the best things created because we can think.

Well, it's nice to see you're not trying to deny our achievements.

Eh, there's nothing to disagree with me except other humans. Make of that what you will, but I'm gonna go ahead and say that it's indicative that my point isn't just hot air.


Most of the species we are trying to save ('care about') our going extinct because of our processes. We try to save them for entirely selfish reasons. If humans did not exist then they would eventually go the way of the Dodo when natural chances dictated.

And once we go extinct, nothing will care.

How many other species can care about rectifying problems they caused? Yeah, okay, so we got stupid and were poor stewards of our world for pretty much the entire Industrial Age. Roger. Nothing to fix that... except we try.

[Brother Oni]

Yes, but saying "We should keep malaria around to justify their adaptations" is kinda like saying "We should keep the planet warm to justify dark skin". It's just goofy.

There's a difference between controlling a disease and exterminating it. I'm not saying that we shouldn't control malaria, but I am saying that we shouldn't exterminate it.



One of these things is not like the others. I'm not talking about exterminating anybody. I'm talking about improving the quality of life for countless people. I've heard thrown around that half of the number of people who died, died of malaria. You're trying to justify keeping it with swishy logic.

In and of itself, getting rid of malaria is a good thing, it's what it leads to that's the issue.
It's like saying that splitting an atom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#History) is never going to lead to anything harmful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project).

As for half of all people who died, dying to malaria, that's because malaria is believed to be a disease that has affected humans since the beginning of our species, which is reinforced by having several notable characteristics of 'mature' diseases (comparatively low mortality, high infectiousness, high resistance to the immune system, among others), compared to 'young' diseases which have a habit of killing off their host before the infection can spread too far.



You're cool with wiping out smallpox, but not cool with wiping out malaria just because one is a virus and the other a protozoan? My brain, it is confused.

Viruses stretch the definition of life - I personally don't see them as being alive, just a harmful biological hazard like poisons.



Eh, if we're able to tweak genes so that we can breed super-kids, I'm pretty sure natural genetic diversity suddenly becomes less of a problem. In the real world, though, it's kinda like saying we gotta save the Chinese spotted lemur to preserve genetic diversity because maybe it might be useful someday. No, it's worse - the hypothetical Chinese spotted lemur isn't actually a problem for thousands upon thousands of people. Sickle cell anemia is.

Actually if you make all children the same, you reduce genetic diversity, making it more likely for a single disease to completely wipe them out. Keeping hold of traits like sickle cell is good for the gene pool in my opinion, although I'd like to clarify that sickle cell anaemia is disease state, sickle cell itself isn't.



Not to be comparing nature to a rapist, but that's kinda like saying a rape victim is responsible for the actions of her assailant. Nowadays, when we understand how disease works? Sure, collectively we bear responsibility for modern pandemics that get out of hand. Back in the day, though, when most of those pandemics happened? That's a negative, Ghost Rider, humanity bore no responsibility for those pandemics popping off because they did not know how to prevent them.

I'm not going to touch the rape analogy as I know it's going to spark off a massive argument which will cloud the issue here.

Diseases developed because we changed from loose, sparsely populated hunter gatherers social groups, to concentrated tight knit communities that live in close proximity to animals.

It's because of this close proximity that things jump the species barrier to humans and because of our concentrated communities and resultant poor hygiene, diseases have time to adapt to better infect humans.
Look back at the Middle Ages, there used to be annual plagues and epidemics every summer in virtually every major European city, with several notable ones like the Great Plague of London.

If we take any example of where people from a concentrated environment meet others from a loose one, diseases have spread rampantly - Cortes and the Aztecs, the Native Americans and American settlers among others.

The advance of civilisation has a direct correlation to the development of diseases. It's like the difference between involuntary manslaughter and murder - someone's dead at the end regardless of the initial intent.

[Rising Phoenix]

Solaris, thank you for your post. I wasn't trying to argue with you, merely present facts. In addition to presenting more facts, you also present potential scenarios and philosophical views.

Since you've added these two elements now that cannot be proven as either correct or incorrect and you admit as having a more anthropocentric view than me, there's no point in discussing this further as both it becomes more of a personal opinion rather then a fact based discussion.

All the best,

R.P.

[Solaris]

There's a difference between controlling a disease and exterminating it. I'm not saying that we shouldn't control malaria, but I am saying that we shouldn't exterminate it.

And I'm still boggled as to why you'd want to keep it around.


In and of itself, getting rid of malaria is a good thing, it's what it leads to that's the issue.
It's like saying that splitting an atom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#History) is never going to lead to anything harmful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project).

It sure beat out the alternative, but that's delving into history a wee too recent.


As for half of all people who died, dying to malaria, that's because malaria is believed to be a disease that has affected humans since the beginning of our species, which is reinforced by having several notable characteristics of 'mature' diseases (comparatively low mortality, high infectiousness, high resistance to the immune system, among others), compared to 'young' diseases which have a habit of killing off their host before the infection can spread too far.

Yes. I see no reason to allow this to continue.


Viruses stretch the definition of life - I personally don't see them as being alive, just a harmful biological hazard like poisons.

Not to go insane troll on you, but they're all animalcules (and yes, I know that's been scientifically obsolete for damn near forever). Just because it's alive doesn't mean it has a right to life, especially if it only lives by harming other things.


Actually if you make all children the same, you reduce genetic diversity, making it more likely for a single disease to completely wipe them out. Keeping hold of traits like sickle cell is good for the gene pool in my opinion, although I'd like to clarify that sickle cell anaemia is disease state, sickle cell itself isn't.

You missed my point. If we can tinker with the genome that easily, then we can tinker with the genome pretty darn easily. The various diverse traits - especially the problematic ones - can be reduced down to an index we keep on hand in case it turns out we need it.
I'm well aware that sickle cell isn't. The problem comes from when two people who have sickle cell breed and produce someone with the anemic version of it.


I'm not going to touch the rape analogy as I know it's going to spark off a massive argument which will cloud the issue here.

Diseases developed because we changed from loose, sparsely populated hunter gatherers social groups, to concentrated tight knit communities that live in close proximity to animals.

It's because of this close proximity that things jump the species barrier to humans and because of our concentrated communities and resultant poor hygiene, diseases have time to adapt to better infect humans.
Look back at the Middle Ages, there used to be annual plagues and epidemics every summer in virtually every major European city, with several notable ones like the Great Plague of London.

If we take any example of where people from a concentrated environment meet others from a loose one, diseases have spread rampantly - Cortes and the Aztecs, the Native Americans and American settlers among others.

The advance of civilisation has a direct correlation to the development of diseases. It's like the difference between involuntary manslaughter and murder - someone's dead at the end regardless of the initial intent.

Sure, we're responsible in the way of "Gravity is responsible for you sticking to the planet's surface", not morally responsible. It's like saying a rape victim is responsible for being raped because she's female, or rather her father's responsible for the X-chromosome spermatazoa beating out a Y-chromosome. Congregating into groups is human nature, though cities of such magnitude are an excess even by our standards (we do best with small tribes of about a hundred and fifty).


Solaris, thank you for your post. I wasn't trying to argue with you, merely present facts. In addition to presenting more facts, you also present potential scenarios and philosophical views.

Since you've added these two elements now that cannot be proven as either correct or incorrect and you admit as having a more anthropocentric view than me, there's no point in discussing this further as both it becomes more of a personal opinion rather then a fact based discussion.

All the best,

R.P.

Fair enough. Just don't push the "Kill All Humans" button, and we're good.

[Brother Oni]

And I'm still boggled as to why you'd want to keep it around.


Again, I'd like to re-iterate that I'm all for controlling it until malaria is a minor ailment. I'm against eradicating it off the face of the planet but with the current initiatives may have to settle for a single sample controlled by the CDC.

I'm also opposed to the current proposals that the CDC destroy their current sample of smallpox. I've two reasons for this: one is for simple preservation issues, the other is that there's no guarantee that the other facility holding a smallpox sample will do the same and security is a bit more of a concern there.



Not to go insane troll on you, but they're all animalcules (and yes, I know that's been scientifically obsolete for damn near forever). Just because it's alive doesn't mean it has a right to life, especially if it only lives by harming other things.

Looking up that term, it says it's an archaic word for a microscopic animal or protozoan, which a virus is neither.

From your other posts, I think here's where we differ on philosophical and other board forbidden topics, so I'm going to leave it at that.

Edit: Thinking about your phrase of 'especially if it only lives by harming other things', would you include obligate carnivores, animals that can only digest meat, in that definition?
They can only live by eating other animals, in the same way that a disease can only survive by living off the host.



You missed my point. If we can tinker with the genome that easily, then we can tinker with the genome pretty darn easily. The various diverse traits - especially the problematic ones - can be reduced down to an index we keep on hand in case it turns out we need it.


There's a difference between tinkering with the genome on a single fertilised egg and attempting to rewrite the genome of a child or adult. The first is actually within the reach of our current technology (take a look at the current designer baby row), but the latter we can only do to a very limited degree.
If a disease came through that attacked all the modified children, then we'd lose a large number of the current generation before we could find a cure.
The next batch of modified children would be able to benefit, but that doesn't really help the already afflicted, unless the disease is such that you can utilise the new children as donors.



Sure, we're responsible in the way of "Gravity is responsible for you sticking to the planet's surface", not morally responsible. It's like saying a rape victim is responsible for being raped because she's female, or rather her father's responsible for the X-chromosome spermatazoa beating out a Y-chromosome. Congregating into groups is human nature, though cities of such magnitude are an excess even by our standards (we do best with small tribes of about a hundred and fifty).


Domestication of animals is not in 'human nature' and this is the initial seed of diseases. Our gathering into groups did the rest.
This is still continuing even today - take a look at the most recent H5N1 bird flu epidemic, which jumped from infected poultry.

We're not morally responsible for diseases, but our actions have had a direct effect on disease development.

Suppose a obviously drunken man dressed in designer clothing, clutching an iPhone in his hand, is stumbling home after a party and decides to take a short cut through a dangerous part of town late at night.
Did he intend to get mugged? No.
Is he morally responsible for the mugging or mugger? No.
Is he in any other way, shape or form, responsible for getting mugged? Yes.

Taking it back to your original point, that's why humanity is not responsible for natural disasters like a volcanic eruption, which are completely outside of our control, but are for epidemics and pandemics.

[Kislath]

I'm also in favor of keeping the smallpox samples intact. If we should suffer a catastrophe and lose our ability to make it from scratch, but wind up reeeally needing it in a hurry, then having a sample would be very very handy.

[Serpentine]

Uh... Diseases have been around long before humans, much less before the human domestication of animals :smallconfused: Extended close contact with animals and each other certainly makes the spreading of them easier, and possibly causes them to evolve faster, but it definitely wasn't "the initial seed of diseases".

On that note: if viruses count, there is one thing I'd barely hesitate to eradicate with this button if I had the chance. The virus that causes Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease. ...except apparently it's not a virus, which sucks, cuz it really sucks :/
It looks like this (caution: not pretty):
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/taz2.jpg?
and may well cause the extinction of Tassie devils, at least in the wild.

[Ravens_cry]

Ooh, that's a scary one. The appearance, OK, it would put me off my dinner, but that's not half of it. Basically, it's an infectious cancer.

[Serpentine]

Yup. And it's already almost wiped out most wild Tasmanian devils, in a very slow and painful way :frown:

[Rising Phoenix]

Yup. And it's already almost wiped out most wild Tasmanian devils, in a very slow and painful way :frown:

The 'good' news is that the mainland captive populations of Tassie Devils will be safe so long as infected animals from Tasmania aren't exported... But, last time I checked mainland animals don't have enough genetic diversity which is a bummer...

More seriously threatened is the Tasmanian Orange-bellied Parrot, only 50 of those are left in the wild with another 150-200 in captivity... Oooh I'd get rid of the virus that killed half their captive population.