Another one bites the dust: Western Black Rhino

[Draconi Redfir]

While browsing through my usual internet patrol routes just now, i came across some rather unsettling news. it seems The western black rhinoceros (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45236688/ns/world_news-world_environment/#.TrxaIVYu68N) has been declared officially extinct, I’m not sure if that means their are still one or two still running around incapable of breeding or otherwise unable to provide enough genetic diversity to repopulate the species, or if the very last one of them has indeed gone to the great grazing grounds in the sky.

While it may only be a subspecies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Black_Rhinoceros) of the now more common Black Rhino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rhino) it was still a large mammal, much like ourselves, put to death by (I think) over-poaching and a lack of proper conservation attempts.

And while we may always have a sore spot for what the rhinoceros did in the James and the giant peach movie, and while it's extinction will ultimately allow a new species to emerge and take it's place, and While it may still have living cousins on the very same continent! It was still a creature, still a legendary beast that stood among Africa's big five! And it still rocked one kickarse giant Schnoz and an awesome mighty horn!

put to an end by our own kind...


So raise a glass, have a moment of silence, give a salute, send a prayer, do whatever you do to show respect you choose, to the mighty, the powerful, the respectable, the nearly-blind, the bold, the brave, the doesn't afraid of anything, Western. Black. Rhino! (http://www.google.ca/search?pq=schnauzer&hl=en&sugexp=ppwl&cp=20&gs_id=4x&xhr=t&q=nose+alternate+slang&safe=off&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1152&bih=626&wrapid=tljp1321181578342071&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi#um=1&hl=en&safe=off&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=western+black+rhino&pbx=1&oq=western+black+rhino&aq=f&aqi=g2g-S1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=689l7301l0l7815l20l15l0l3l0l2l1140l4922l1.0 .1.5.1.2.0.1l12l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1bdafb81b568bce8&biw=1152&bih=626)

...And hope he is not only the first.

[Eldan]

Sad to say he is not only the first, because he isn't the first at all. Big mammals have been dying off at increasing rates pretty much since humans have been around to eat them. Just look at the North American camel. A lot of species (not of mammals, but species in general) die out without any human ever seeing them.

[Mixt]

Yep, humans are bastards.

Damn it, quit driving other species into extinction!

{Scrubbed}

[grimbold]

humans suck and it makes me cry :smallfrown:

[Draconi Redfir]

While it's true animals have been going extinct since forever ago, this is simply the most recent, and a member of a species that is so popular even small children know about it.

"Sloth" isn't exactly a common animal to know about when you’re young for example.

[Moonshadow]

Alas, but for greed, t'would many species be alive and kicking today. 'Tis easier to destroy than create though. Such is the way of the world.

[grimbold]

While it's true animals have been going extinct since forever ago, this is simply the most recent, and a member of a species that is so popular even small children know about it.

"Sloth" isn't exactly a common animal to know about when you’re young for example.

Oo
i knew about sloths when i was little
partially due to the Ice Age movies but still...

[Draconi Redfir]

ah... weeell i didn't so maybe it's just me then.

[onthetown]

Sad that this particular species of rhino is extinct, but is this just going to devolve into a "I hate humans we should all put ourselves out of the other animals' misery" thread? :smallsigh: It's true that humans have caused the extinction of many species now, but it's also true that species of animals have been going extinct for millions of years without our help.

Still, sad to see another one bite the dust. Rhinos are cute.

[grimbold]

ah... weeell i didn't so maybe it's just me then.

anyway asides from that i get your point and i agree
once better known animals (like this rhino) start dying off maybe we will get better at preserving the ones still left

[Serpentine]

It's true that humans have caused the extinction of many species now, but it's also true that species of animals have been going extinct for millions of years without our help.Sure, but not nearly as many and not nearly as fast.

The Tassie devil might be next on the list, at least in the wild :smallfrown: Still, at least that one wasn't our fault, as far as I know, and people have been jumping on it early (but still perhaps too late...) to try to save them.

[onthetown]

I just don't buy the whole "hate your fellow specie because they did x" bit. Horrible things happen every day, whether it be murder or the extinction of an animal due to us, and I have yet to start hating humans like half the other people I talk to. Though that might just be a flaw with the people I talk to.

[Serpentine]

Actually, I'm optimistic. I think humanity and the world as a whole is, on the whole, getting better all the time. The only question is whether we'll get good enough before too many other species go extinct because of our old bad habits - including us.

[Morph Bark]

While it's true animals have been going extinct since forever ago, this is simply the most recent, and a member of a species that is so popular even small children know about it.

"Sloth" isn't exactly a common animal to know about when you’re young for example.

Dodos, anyone?

[irenicObserver]

humans suck and it makes me cry :smallfrown:
All humans suck? Even us at the forums? Even the guy that started this thread? Even that little kid that hasn't done anything? Even the philanthropists and animal activist that try to make things better when it seems like everything is falling apart.

Sad that this particular species of rhino is extinct, but is this just going to devolve into a "I hate humans we should all put ourselves out of the other animals' misery" thread? :smallsigh: It's true that humans have caused the extinction of many species now, but it's also true that species of animals have been going extinct for millions of years without our help.

Still, sad to see another one bite the dust. Rhinos are cute.

This. Very much this. God am I sick to death of hearing misanthropy !(>.<)!

[Shadow of the Sun]

To be honest, humans are a spit in the ocean when it comes to extinctions. I mean, sure, we end up causing a fair bit of damage to species and do even kill them, but the majority of species that have ever lived on this planet have gone extinct, without us to help them along the way.

I still think the best example of human involvement in a species' extinction was when a lighthouse owner's cat kept bringing in these funny wrens. He sent one off to be analyzed, and it was declared a new species...by which time the cat had found and eaten EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE OF THEM.

[Serpentine]

To be honest, humans are a spit in the ocean when it comes to extinctions. I mean, sure, we end up causing a fair bit of damage to species and do even kill them, but the majority of species that have ever lived on this planet have gone extinct, without us to help them along the way.But not at this rate. Yes, the world changes, and yes, organisms go extinct. But not this fast, not this many, not on this scale, and not because of one single other species. And certainly not because of one single species that (supposedly) has the self-awareness and intelligence to stop doing it.

[Rising Phoenix]

Sure, but not nearly as many and not nearly as fast.

The Tassie devil might be next on the list, at least in the wild :smallfrown: Still, at least that one wasn't our fault, as far as I know, and people have been jumping on it early (but still perhaps too late...) to try to save them.

Orange-bellied Parrot will probably beat it though... only 20 wild individuals left...

At least there are ~300 in captivity, but adults are required it seems to teach juveniles to migrate so if the last wild adults go extinct...

The western Siberian Crane population has been reduced to 1 lone male whom still migrates year after year hoping he'll find a mate... I wonder how he feels...Thankfully the eastern population of the species is doing much better at ~4,000 individuals

Thanks to the reclamation projects in the Yellow Sea area ~30 bird species will be gone in the next 30-50 years unless something's done... I am researching these guys so I hope I will be able to ameliorate their situations a bit...

Oh and let's not forget the Passenger Pigeon...

[Serpentine]

Australia, iirc, has more endangered species than any other country/continent. I've also read that we almost certainly have many more than has been estimated - they're just all small, boring brown things that no one notices or cares enough about to pay attention to.

[Rising Phoenix]

Australia, iirc, has more endangered species than any other country/continent. I've also read that we almost certainly have many more than has been estimated - they're just all small, boring brown things that no one notices or cares enough about to pay attention to.

Hey small, boring brown things are very interesting if you actually pay attention to. :smallsmile:

Oh and we most certainly have 'big' surprises e.g. (http://bird-o.com/2010/05/06/the-new-atherton-quail-thrush/) and e.g. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgAbyYDFeg) waiting to be discovered.

My honours' supervisor works on insects and he estimates that for each hectare Australians' develop we lose 10-20 undescribed invertebrate species... gods know how many plants... especially in Western Australia.

[Mixt]

Let's face it, we are in the middle of another mass-extinction event.

One caused by humans.

Mass-extinction event, as in, 90% or so of all life on the planet is likely to be dead and gone by the end of it.

And it's all because humans are idiots :smallfurious:

[Serpentine]

I meant boring to the "general society" :smalltongue:
Have you read into aquifers at all? Those things are amazing. It's been ages since I read it, and it was only the one thing, so this is probably gonna be inaccurate, but from my flawed memory: you can have dozens of separate aquifers within, say, a few hundred metres, each completely separate from its neighbours. And in each one, there is a completely self-enclosed and unique ecosystem, dependent solely on whatever nutrients - a dead leaf, a couple of bugs - happen to fall into it, containing species found nowhere else on the planet.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Let's face it, we are in the middle of another mass-extinction event.

One caused by humans.

Mass-extinction event, as in, 90% or so of all life on the planet is likely to be dead and gone by the end of it.

And it's all because humans are idiots :smallfurious:

Mmm...

That's overstating it. Yes, we've screwed up a lot, and yes, we are idiots. But we're just hastening the demise. Any of a whole bunch of possible extinction events - all natural, by the by - are cued up for the (at least geologically) near future. For one thing, we'll be moving into an ice age in a thousand or so years.

[Rising Phoenix]

I meant boring to the "general society" :smalltongue:
Have you read into aquifers at all? Those things are amazing. It's been ages since I read it, and it was only the one thing, so this is probably gonna be inaccurate, but from my flawed memory: you can have dozens of separate aquifers within, say, a few hundred metres, each completely separate from its neighbours. And in each one, there is a completely self-enclosed and unique ecosystem, dependent solely on whatever nutrients - a dead leaf, a couple of bugs - happen to fall into it, containing species found nowhere else on the planet.

Yup and mining companies get in big, big trouble if they destroy one and the news gets out... Hence why there's so much knowledge about them, they have to fund survey teams before they mine.

Some don't even have any nutrient input and are entirely dependent on bacteria communities. It is also fascinating that many of the species are closely related to tropical species, something that hints to Australia's greener history... (though the way we are going it may become like that again... It's going to be the 4th(!!) wet season in a row inland)

[Serpentine]

Oh, yeah? They're protected? That's good to hear. You know more about it than I do: where are they?
Mmm...

That's overstating it. Yes, we've screwed up a lot, and yes, we are idiots. But we're just hastening the demise. Any of a whole bunch of possible extinction events - all natural, by the by - are cued up for the (at least geologically) near future. For one thing, we'll be moving into an ice age in a thousand or so years.Yes - well, plausibly; I haven't looked much into that sort of thing. But an ice age that would effect the world slower than we are. An event to which most species will have enough time to adapt and so make it through. Stellar's sea cow didn't have enough time to adapt to humans slaughtering them for their meat - an ice age, though? Sure, they probably could have managed, in one form or another.

[Shadow of the Sun]

The point that I'm making -and this isn't supposed to mean that we shouldn't worry about species extinctions and such, because we should - is that in the grand scheme of things, what we do to this planet is pretty insignificant. It is significant now, certainly. But one or two geological epochs from now and what we've done here will be nothing.

Again, this isn't to say that it's a bad thing that we're causing extinctions, nor that we should just let them happen saying "Oh well, would have happened anyway!" because, as the only known intelligent life on this planet, we have a duty of care to it and everything else on it.

But saying that "90% of all life on the planet will go extinct because humans are idiots" - as has been stated in this thread - is really giving us too much credit. There IS a limit to how much damage we can do.

[Rising Phoenix]

Oh, yeah? They're protected? That's good to hear. You know more about it than I do: where are they?

As far as I know most have been discovered in the Pilbara where all the mining is surprise surprise. Considering the Great Artesian Basin, however, there are probably 100ds more waiting to be discovered

Basically in Australia if a mining company discovers a deposit they are obliged by law to environmental surveys, risks etc. These they then present to the (state) government which then decides if they will get the go ahead or not... Than you must hope that if something threatened/endemic/unique lives there the government will say 'no'. Which may not always be the case even if it's listed as a nature reserve. (http://bimblebox.org/)

Oh but it seems that the finch may save the reserve in the end (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-21/crabb-the-finch-that-ate-clive-palmer/3593084). Still, mighty disturbing that a nature reserve isn't safe from mining prospects.

[Serpentine]

Nor even the Great Frigging Barrier Reef, from what I've heard :smallsigh:

Again, this isn't to say that it's a bad thing that we're causing extinctions, nor that we should just let them happen saying "Oh well, would have happened anyway!" because, as the only known intelligent life on this planet, we have a duty of care to it and everything else on it.I'm glad to hear it, because that's what it was sounding like to me.

[Shadow of the Sun]

I've got a passion for the distant past - which generally runs in cycles - which allows me to have a bit of an idea of what's likely to happen to the planet in the future.

However, I am NOT a soulless bastard.

[Rising Phoenix]

Nor even the Great Frigging Barrier Reef, from what I've heard :smallsigh:
I'm glad to hear it, because that's what it was sounding like to me.

Yes, they are planning on developing the Kimberley coastline for heaven's sake! One of the most iconic coast lines that is iconic cause there are no freaking oil pumps! :smallfurious:

I plan on visiting the area in the near future, because if I wait till later I may not be able to see it in its pristine state...

Shadow of the Sun: It's not only because of morals that we need to tend to this blue dot floating in space. It's that if we don't we're not going to be living on it for long...We need all these species for our survival (and mental well being...)

[Serpentine]

Also: relevant (http://serpentine16.deviantart.com/favourites/?offset=72#/d3fh24i). (linked to, not posted, because of a naughty word)

I had a class that included a camp on Heron Island. There was a whole lot of gloomy stuff about climate change and ocean acidification and run-off and all the other things that are threatening the Reef. At one point, near the end, I asked "Is it really so dire?" My lecturer said "Put it this way: go out an enjoy it now, because your children may not be able to."

[Shadow of the Sun]

Rising Phoenix: I know.

I make moral arguments, though, because the idea of having to tell someone "If you keep this up you will end up KILLING US" really, really, really makes me want to pull my hair out from the sheer stupidity of having to do so.

The fact that some folk don't seem to get that perplexes me beyond compare.

[Serpentine]

No, indeed it doesn't have to be so dire. "Nature" will certainly carry on, and Hell, humanity will most likely survive pretty much anything - at least anything that we could cause - in some form. But the question is whether it'll be in a form we'll want. Humanity will probably still exist, but not as we know it.

Easter Island's a pretty good example of this. Basically they chopped down all the trees so they could move those big heads around, until they were all gone. As that lecturer put it: "Do you really think there were no people then suggesting that maybe they shouldn't cut down the last trees?" But they were ignored. [insert observation of parallel to modern circumstances here]
As a result they couldn't make the boats they needed to hunt at sea, and the ecology of the whole island was irrevocably and completely changed. Finally other people found the island, and a bunch of ragged half-starved chicken-keepers...

[Rising Phoenix]

Also: relevant (http://serpentine16.deviantart.com/favourites/?offset=72#/d3fh24i). (linked to, not posted, because of a naughty word)

I had a class that included a camp on Heron Island. There was a whole lot of gloomy stuff about climate change and ocean acidification and run-off and all the other things that are threatening the Reef. At one point, near the end, I asked "Is it really so dire?" My lecturer said "Put it this way: go out an enjoy it now, because your children may not be able to."

When I went to the Great Barrier reef it was a childhood dream come true. I nearly drowned cause I couldn't keep my mouth closed. It was amazing....Working in conservation/zoology and similar sciences must be one of the most depressing jobs in the world... At least you can try to make a difference through them.

SotS (Shadow of the Sun): Agreed, unfortunately the fact is that some people are really that stupid/ignorant/refuse to see the truth...

[Shadow of the Sun]

The Easter Island example is one that I love, because it's one of the best counterexamples to the stereotype of the "native person in touch with nature living harmoniously in such a way that they don't harm it".

No. Just no.

Humanity has for all of its long years been screwing with the environment, often to our own disadvantage. The megafauna that supported a lot of human populations around the world? Yeah, we killed them all and had to adapt. It's repeated a lot of times. One of the major deserts in America is only a desert because the native population exploited it to the point of collapse.

People seem to think that the extinction thing is a modern foible, a result of big bad corporatists and blah blah blah. Thing is, it's not. We've been killing stuff off since we've existed. It's just that since the industrial age, society and the side effects of it - which includes us killing things, sadly - have accelerated significantly.

The past tends to indicate the future, but I'm hoping that we'll actually get the message this time 'round. If we don't, we'll survive, adapt, because that's what we do best. But I'd rather we adapt before breaking point.

Hope springs eternal and all that.

But I do take solace in the fact that no matter how badly we screw up, there's nothing we can do to the planet that can even begin to compare to what happens to the planet on a regular (again in geological time!) basis.

[Juggling Goth]

Sure, but not nearly as many and not nearly as fast.

The Tassie devil might be next on the list, at least in the wild :smallfrown: Still, at least that one wasn't our fault, as far as I know, and people have been jumping on it early (but still perhaps too late...) to try to save them.

*Nods* I really hope not.

I went through this phase of reading books about extinct or near-extinct animals. Not recommended unless you find yourself excessively happy and want to fix this immediately. Started off with Douglas Adams' Last Chance To See (Northern White Rhino and Yangtze River Dolphin gone since then), then Carnivorous Nights, a book about the Tasmanian Tiger. Then a book about the Tasmanian Devils written just as we were finding out about the contagious facial tumours, which had some really gross photos. Then Samuel Turvey's Witness to Extinction: How we failed to save the Yangtzee River Dolphin, which I think is the angriest book I've ever read. Rightly so, since it's an account of staggering laziness and incompetence.

Don't follow my reading list. There's not enough Prozac in the world.

[Tebryn]

But not at this rate. Yes, the world changes, and yes, organisms go extinct. But not this fast, not this many, not on this scale, and not because of one single other species. And certainly not because of one single species that (supposedly) has the self-awareness and intelligence to stop doing it.

Now hold on. Humans haven't done the best with nature but we've hardly caused any mass extinctions. Almost every species that has existed has gone extinct. Are you saying humans are the vast cause of it? Really?

[Traab]

Just like that deviantart picture serp listed said. Worst case? We wipe life out on this world, including ourselves. A few million years later, life will begin again. It always has, and as long as the planet survives, it always will. Jurassic Park said it best. Life finds a way. I say its a race as to whether we wipe out all life, a meteor wipes out all life, or some other cataclysmic event occurs. And in all cases, life will return in time.

[AtlanteanTroll]

This is the countdown to extinction ...

[teratorn]

We need all these species for our survival (and mental well being...)

No we don't, that's a dangerous argument to justify conservationism. Big animals are cool but not really needed for human survival. Europe has no wild lions, rhinos, mammoths, aurochs left, so I don't feel comfortable telling people from other countries they ought to keep theirs even if it means conflict with human populations.

In the case of this rhino it's the futility of the reasons leading to the extinction that makes it feel so much worse. Mammal extinctions outside islands (and Australia) are somewhat rare.

[Draconi Redfir]

Also: relevant (http://serpentine16.deviantart.com/favourites/?offset=72#/d3fh24i). (linked to, not posted, because of a naughty word)

This made me giggle for about an hour. Good job serp:smallbiggrin:


Just like that deviantart picture serp listed said. Worst case? We wipe life out on this world, including ourselves. A few million years later, life will begin again. It always has, and as long as the planet survives, it always will. Jurassic Park said it best. Life finds a way. I say its a race as to whether we wipe out all life, a meteor wipes out all life, or some other cataclysmic event occurs. And in all cases, life will return in time.

I was just going to say pretty much the same thing. I doesn't matter what happens, so long as at least one cell capable of reproduction and adaptation survives, life will find a way.


I once read/watched... something, describing a book which described an alternate future in which humans went extinct and Rodent's took over in their wake. They spent the first hundred years or so feeding on everything we left behind, and the world was composed of islands again so rats between continents become extremely diverse. Soon they had giant carnivore rats hunting down gentle grazing rats. It seems like a pretty interesting story that i'd like to pick up some day.

I may be exaggerating this a little bit, but i think... i think that so long as their is something to eat and some way to reproduce, you could potentially create an entire ecosystem out of just a small batch of organisms. Take the creatures from the silly message boards "the spore game(s)" for example, Rock-eating creatures that also dabble in violent hunting and occasionally eating plants, while reproducing by either splitting, or some other Asexual means (so far.) Theoretically, you could throw a bunch of them into a large cave barren of any life save for perhaps some moss and dripping water, seal it off, and re-open it several hundred years later to see new separate species all formed from the same creature, some with highly armoured shells clinging to the rocks and eating stone, others with sharpened teeth hunting their former cousins down and tearing through the tick armor, and perhaps even more taking on the role of violent plants, attacking anything that comes too close while staying rooted in one spot.


For anyone looking for a good read, i want to suggest the book "Fragment (http://www.amazon.ca/Fragment-Novel-Warren-Fahy/dp/0553807536#_)" as it's about pretty much exactly that, a small group of a single species was left alone for billions of years completely cut off from the rest of the world, and when humans finally found them they had evolved into an extremely diverse ecosystem, large solo hunters, smaller pack hunters, plants, insects, moss, all derived from the same single species. i won't spoil anything for you but if your interested in life finding a way at all you should definitely look for it next time your at the bookstore.


And back on topic it’s pretty much the same idea here, yes we are causing species to go extinct, but we are also allowing new areas for other species to expand too, yes the western black rhino may be dead and gone now, but who knows! Maybe some gazelle in the area will decide to take over the rhino’s previous breeding grounds and grow into giant super-gazelle with a very territorial attitude.

[paddyfool]

While we're on books, I strongly recommend Song of the Dodo on this topic.

And on the "are humans responsible for a mass extinction event" question, may I recommend this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_extinction_event)? It's a tad poorly referenced, but covers a lot of the relevant arguments on both sides.

EDIT: And I find this diagram particularly compelling and relevant:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/Extinctions_Africa_Austrailia_NAmerica_Madagascar. gif

EDIT 2: For the record, my attitude is absolutely not "I hate humanity for this". It's more like "Humanity, I love you, but I wish this would stop".

[druid91]

Let's face it, we are in the middle of another mass-extinction event.

One caused by humans.

Mass-extinction event, as in, 90% or so of all life on the planet is likely to be dead and gone by the end of it.

And it's all because humans are idiots :smallfurious:


More like humans are awesome idiots. In that I mean in the sense of dumbledores "Being rather cleverer my mistakes tend to be more correspondingly huge."

But then I also want to live on mars as it currently exists, with no terraforming so...

I have a question? Why don't we just catalogue and clone everything?

[Draconi Redfir]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/Extinctions_Africa_Austrailia_NAmerica_Madagascar. gif



Well... at least we're getting better right? i mean look at Madagascar! Things were going fine for awhile even AFTER we showed up:smallbiggrin:

[paddyfool]

I confess, seeing Madagascar there did make me imagine some super-intelligent being playing a warped real-life version of Pandemic II...

What I find most interesting about those graphs is (continental) Africa. There, big things had time to adapt a bit to people, and got better at surviving us. Elsewhere, they didn't. Behold the power and limitations of evolution and adaptive behaviour in large mammals.

[Rising Phoenix]

No we don't, that's a dangerous argument to justify conservationism. Big animals are cool but not really needed for human survival. Europe has no wild lions, rhinos, mammoths, aurochs left, so I don't feel comfortable telling people from other countries they ought to keep theirs even if it means conflict with human populations.

In the case of this rhino it's the futility of the reasons leading to the extinction that makes it feel so much worse. Mammal extinctions outside islands (and Australia) are somewhat rare.


The problem with this statement in that we don't know what niche most species fill. Sure big things are well studied and we know what will happen when they go. But what about small things? They make the world go round and they are going extinct without anyone noticing. They also represent the largest proportion of species.

Saying that we don't need a species, any species, is like saying pushing buttons at random. You probably are not going to push the big red one, but the more species you let go over, the greater the chance.

Also yes, we should definitely tell other countries to preserve their biodiversity. Just because we made a mistake does not warrant letting others do the same mistake.

Another thing to consider is that every species you let go extinct is a potential solution to humanities innumerable problems gone forever. That last plant you just burnt down? It could be what we need for fighting AIDs and so on.

Lastly living in a biodiverse environment is mentally good since it is very very stimulating.

I am not saying you should give absolute power to conservationists, not all are down to earth (*cough*Greenpeace and genetically modified crops.*cough*). But if the wider scientific community is yelling and screaming, you should probably listen and have a very good think about if you want to continue what you are doing.

I also understand and fully accept that we cannot save every species that is going over the fence due to our activities. However, every species you do save will in all likelihood save a bunch of others living in the same environment.

Regarding cloning dead stuff. It's being looked into and genetic banks are being made. The technology is still very immature for it to take off though. Three problems with this approach to consider though. 1) Hurray, you brought a species back from the dead! Crack the bottle open! It went over the fence due to habitat destruction... where are you going to reintroduce it? 2) How are you going to teach it to survive? and 3) your animals are most likely going to be lacking genetic diversity as they are derived from a small number of specimens, this is very bad in the short term, but as mutation takes off will be ameliorated in a few to a few thousand years depending on its reproduction rate... if it's going to be able to breed...

*reads some other posts*... I don't understand the attitude of some people, just because the planet will recover/ asteroid will destroy the earth/ the sun will eventually burn out/ some other scenario that is true, does not mean that we should carry on our merry ways destroying everything.

Why? For starters because it is utterly irresponsible for our survival.

Second, because that is a horrible legacy. Sure, if we are dead not much will probably care. But do we want to go down in the universe's history as a species who was brilliant, yet extremely and utterly stupid?

Third, some of you have suggested space travel as a solution (not this thread, but in others). Guess what is severely limited in space travel? Natural resources. If we cannot manage stuff on this planet where it had a 'few' million years to work things out, do you really think we will able to do so in space where there is no room for mistakes? I don't think so.

[Serpentine]

+1 @ Phoenix.
Now hold on. Humans haven't done the best with nature but we've hardly caused any mass extinctions.We are causing mass extinctions. Right this very moment. What is "the highest rate of extinctions since the end of the dinosaurs" if not a mass extinction event? :smallconfused:

Almost every species that has existed has gone extinct.I find that claim kinda suspect. No doubt many of the animals have been elliminated because of being out-competed and similar, but I also suspect that a big slab of them didn't so much get wiped out as simply evolved into something else. Either way, they weren't here one century and gone the next. It took thousands of years, at minimum, for the numbers of one species to dwindle and for another to rise to take its place. That's a far, far cry from being wiped out within 30 years of humans taking notice of them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steller's_Sea_Cow)

Are you saying humans are the vast cause of it? Really?Of the massive upswing in rates of extinction since humans started to be a serious contender on this planet? Yes, absolutely. And just looking at Australia, I seriously can't understand how you could possibly suggest we're not :smallconfused:

[onthetown]

So it is devolving into a "I hate humans" thread. Good grief. I'm beginning to wonder if people remember what species they are.

I agree with the person who said that on the grand scale of things, what we do is insignificant even though it may be significant in the present.

[Serpentine]

I agree with the person who said that on the grand scale of things, what we do is insignificant even though it may be significant in the present.That's hardly a reason to be all "who cares? We can do what we like", though.
See also: that picture I linked to.

[Draconi Redfir]

were are you getting that? I’ve seen a lot of "humans are irresponsible and we should know better/learn from our mistakes" but only like... two "humans suck and must die blah blah blah" posts.

[Tebryn]

+1 @ Phoenix.We are causing mass extinctions. Right this very moment. What is "the highest rate of extinctions since the end of the dinosaurs" if not a mass extinction event? :smallconfused:

When was the last animal besides this declared extinct? Can you even recall? Other animals cause their compitition to die out as well. Nature is cruel, animals do not simply exist in a state of perfect harmony without our medling. There are no animals we've not domesticated that do not live hungry and or scared at all times. I didn't say we caused no exctinction, just claiming we're the worst cause is not correct.


I find that claim kinda suspect. No doubt many of the animals have been elliminated because of being out-competed and similar, but I also suspect that a big slab of them didn't so much get wiped out as simply evolved into something else. Either way, they weren't here one century and gone the next. It took thousands of years, at minimum, for the numbers of one species to dwindle and for another to rise to take its place. That's a far, far cry from being wiped out within 30 years of humans taking notice of them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steller's_Sea_Cow)


Yes, we can point to numerous examples such as that which would be good proof if I was not agreeing with you that humans cause species to die out. Numerous others have died out without us ever being present. All the species that existed before we were even on this planet for example. You are aware that Genetic Pollution is considered exctinction? When a species can no longer be classified as said species due to breeding and mutation?


Of the massive upswing in rates of extinction since humans started to be a serious contender on this planet? Yes, absolutely. And just looking at Australia, I seriously can't understand how you could possibly suggest we're not :smallconfused:

I don't think you can even claim that without you know...solid evidence. I would contend in the grand scheme of things that we've not even caused close to 50% of all the extinctions of species on the entire planet. Are you aware that we've almost been wiped out at least twice due to events totally beyond our control? And other species suffered at the same time? That some species were wiped out by other species and we just happened along and finished the job their top predator started? We are by no means the worst evil. Nature is. It's cruel and heartless and doesn't care one wit about you or anything else on this planet.


So it is devolving into a "I hate humans" thread. Good grief. I'm beginning to wonder if people remember what species they are.

I agree with the person who said that on the grand scale of things, what we do is insignificant even though it may be significant in the present.

Thank you. I find it irksome that plenty of people want to somehow make us the villains like we're actually all that important to the natural scheme of things.

[Leliel]

So it is devolving into a "I hate humans" thread. Good grief. I'm beginning to wonder if people remember what species they are.

I agree with the person who said that on the grand scale of things, what we do is insignificant even though it may be significant in the present.

Yes, but we're worried about us.

As for me?

It's a minor extinction event. A global one, but that's what happens when one species proves itself the ultimate competitor in the war called "nature".

I do, however, think that it will remain minor, since unlike Easter Island, humans actually are listening this time. About the only country putting it's head in the sand is America, and it's body is trying to pull it out.

It's not enough to save a lot of biodiversity, but it's enough to save most of us.

Also, the population problem?

Bogus. The Earth can in fact support much more of us, it's the living conditions for us that suffer. Ergo, better tech, better schooling.

[Serpentine]

When was the last animal besides this declared extinct? Can you even recall?"Since 1500, over 190 species of birds have become extinct, and this rate of extinction seems to be increasing." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_birds)
Compare "at the background rate one species of bird will go extinct every estimated 400 years" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_extinction_rate).
Australia alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_animals_of_Australia) has lost 54 vertebrate animals since the arrival of Europeans, and before that it is generally agreed that aboriginals at least hastened the demise of our megafauna.
Worldwide mammal extinctions since 1500. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mammal_extinctions_since_1500)

So yeah, this isn't exactly an isolated incidence of extinction.

Other animals cause their compitition to die out as well. Nature is cruel, animals do not simply exist in a state of perfect harmony without our medling.We are responsible for our own actions, not those of nature. And we are messing things up big-time.

I didn't say we caused no exctinction, just claiming we're the worst cause is not correct.We are not the worst there has ever been, perhaps, but "we're not as bad as the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs!" isn't exactly glowing praise. And we are killing species of plants and animals at a faster rate than any other cause of extinction outside those sorts of catastrophes. Yes, no doubt, "the vast majority of species are extinct, and it's hardly humanity's fault", but that is over the course of 4,500 million years. We are killing these organisms in the space of a few thousand years. Do we seriously have to destroy the same number of species as 4,500 million years before you'll consider us to have even a significant effect on Earth's biodiversity?

You are aware that Genetic Pollution is considered exctinction? When a species can no longer be classified as said species due to breeding and mutation?I did say that, yes. And as I pointed out, that is generally much slower than what we're doing.
I don't think you can even claim that without you know...solid evidence.I look forward to seeing your evidence that the rate of extinction since humans became a big deal is not significantly greater than that of normal background extinction.

[Shadow of the Sun]

I find that claim kinda suspect. No doubt many of the animals have been elliminated because of being out-competed and similar, but I also suspect that a big slab of them didn't so much get wiped out as simply evolved into something else.

Not quite. Examining the fossil record, it indicates that there have been an astonishingly massive number of species. I think that there is a fossil that contains some 20 different arthropod body types, only four of which are still extant among arthropods today. If we are expecting a similar level of genetic diversity as there is today, and there doesn't appear to be any reason too expect otherwise, it would then follow that the majority of species didn't evolve into something else- they were here one day (or epoch) and gone the next.

The proof that they didn't evolve into something else is that we don't have animals will that body type anymore- if they'd evolved, they'd have kept it, or the amount of body types would have increased, instead of reducing from 17 to four.

But again, this is NOT to say that we DON'T have a duty of care to the planet, or that we can say that we're not at fault, because we are. But I think it's silly to overstate the human impact. Even if we killed of ALL the species on the planet at the moment, and we can't, we still wouldn't be adding much (comparatively) to the amount of species that have gone extinct on planet Earth.

[Tebryn]

108 species of mammals in the span of 511 years, 190 species of bird 298 species altogether if you want to ignore marine life which I couldn't find a number for. Let's take a look at the Permian-Triassic Extinction event where it is thought 70% of all extant vertebrate life was wiped out. 57% of insect species (the only time there was a major extinction of them) in the span of twenty six years. Ya, it was a long time ago but you sorta get the point right? 70% of all vertabrate life on the planet was wiped out in a period of 26 years. I do not think a single human being could begin to really fathom that level of mass die off. The number of species wiped out is countless and not a single one of us has a single clue at even 10% of what we lost, what life was wiped out that no longer exists because they were wiped out to a soul.

So you'll excuse me if I look at the rather piddling 298 (We can even go higher and call it 500 species in 511 years) when compared to the number of living things that were wiped out in the Permian-Triassic Die Off. And that really brings me to my main point and the issue I have with the argument altogether. When nature does it that's just nature. When we do it that's a horrible horrible thing because we "know better". When was the last time nature saved a species?

Can you even point out a time when a species has saved a species that was already on it's way out the door from buying the farm? Bet you or anyone else can because that's not what nature does. Ya, we've killed off roughly one species every year since the 1500's but would you like to see a list of species we've helped back into the wild? Perhaps like the Lord Howe Island woodhen? Or perhaps the prairie dog? Wooping Crane? Grizzzly Bear? Bald Eagle? Gray Wolf? Or the Green Sea Turtle? Florida Panther? How about the Key Deer? The list goes on and on.

We're not angles for sure. But we can fix out mistakes, learn from them and change our ways. Would you rather us just kill ourselves off and be done with it? Because I can promise you or anyone else who would like us to go that route that the world won't give a red cent about it and go on continuing to kill when ever it so pleases because that's frankly how nature works. It's a cold and hard place where most species live hungry and scared all the time. We've at least worked to give some peace to a handful of animals and try to repair the damage we've done to our world.

However, I will not be one to place a window over our actions and somehow make them more special. I'll do my part to make sure we don't keep doing horrible things to nature for the continuation to the species but I don't see nature as our friend. I see it as our mortal enemy in our daily life and I long for the day we can make it our slave. Because if we don't the future of mankind is the exact same as it is for every species not strong enough to do so. Death. I don't want to see our kind go out the window like so many nameless creatures of the past. If that means treading on a few already weak fellow members of the planet Earth than so be it. Our species is the most important species on the planet by merit of it being -my- species.

[Serpentine]

Even if we killed of ALL the species on the planet at the moment, and we can't, we still wouldn't be adding much (comparatively) to the amount of species that have gone extinct on planet Earth.And again, "all the species that have gone extinct on planet Earth" did so over thousands of millions of years. Total amount means exactly squat. The rate is what matters. And the rate of extinctions has been going up massively in step with human development.
Killing every species currently alive on the planet will, indeed, be a drop in the ocean compared with millions and millions of years of change. But it would hardly be an insiginificant change to planet biodiversity, and the rate would be incredibly higher than the rate over those millions of years.
The message you, and other people with similar claims, is sending me is "it doesn't matter how many species we destroy." And I will fight that message with my dying breath - to be terribly melodramatic.

edit @^: So you're saying that, because we're not as bad as a world-wide decimating catastrophy millions of years ago, we're a-okay? Like I said, if the best you can say is "but we're not killing as many species as super-cataclysms!", you're not exactly painting humanity in a good light.
I would, indeed, like to see a list of species we've helped save - especially if it includes species that weren't endangered because of us in the first place. It would be a ray of light after all this depressing stuff. I don't expect it to be nearly as long as the list of species extinct or endangered as a direct result of our activities, though.
Again, I haven't said anything like "we should all just kill ourselves" or whatever nonsense you feel like shoving in my mouth. In fact, just a little while ago I said how optimistic I am about humanity's progress, and how I believe we can fix ourselves before we destroy ourselves. But that doesn't mean I think we should ignore the fact that Homo sapiens is the direct cause of a higher extinction rate than any time in the history of life outside of near-world-destroying cataclysms. In fact, acknowledging that is absolutely necessary for us to start fixing it.

[Tebryn]

And again, "all the species that have gone extinct on planet Earth" did so over thousands of millions of years. Total amount means exactly squat. The rate is what matters. And the rate of extinctions has been going up massively in step with human development.

So what you'r really saying is that it's all our fault and even though there was a period of 26 years where 70% of all vertebrata species were wiped out somehow 511 years with perhaps 500 species is somehow worse because we did it?



Killing every species currently alive on the planet will, indeed, be a drop in the ocean compared with millions and millions of years of change. But it would hardly be an insiginificant change to planet biodiversity, and the rate would be incredibly higher than the rate over those millions of years.

Thankfully that's probably not going to happen before nature up and throws a super volcano or mega tsunami or asteroid at us. We can rest easy knowing we're not ever going to reach that level of monstrosity.


The message you, and other people with similar claims, is sending me is "it doesn't matter how many species we destroy." And I will fight that message with my dying breath - to be terribly melodramatic.

Well, fight on but you're fighting against a strawman. At least in my case. I'm saying "sure, we've killed some species but we've also saved more species than nature has." And also saying "the species we kill are not somehow special because it was our fault." Fight on I guess.

[Serpentine]

See my edits.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Except that that message is directly contradicted by the other half of my post, which includes stuff about duty of care due to being intelligent and such.

Humans should try to save as many species as we can. That is, to me, unarguable- it is our DUTY.

However, I have to deal with fear mongers and idiots who have said that "Humans have ruined the planet beyond repair and no life will live here again" - although I may be exaggerating there, for melodrama.

No, we shouldn't destroy as many species as we want. That is ludicrous. But we shouldn't overstate our impact, either. Every preventable species loss is a tragedy, one that SHOULD have been prevented.

But humans can't - and I mean that entirely literally, CAN NOT damage this planet beyond its capabilities of repairing itself. We can damage it beyond its capabilities to sustain US, but like that comic you posted- people are self-centred and place way too much impact on what humans can do to the planet.

But it's not an all or nothing thing. It's not either "Humans aren't doing anything at all and can do what they please" or "Humans will purge this planet of life once and for all FOREVER!".

We SHOULD try to fix the stuff that we have done, to redevelop critically endangered species, and to stop species from becoming endangered in the first place. But overstating what we can do in terms of the damage we cause is simple intellectual laziness.

[Tebryn]

They don't change anything. I already provided a number of species we've saved, some of which weren't because of our own mismanagement of the planet. The fact remains that we're doing something nature doesn't do and that blaming ourselves for all the woes of the world is horribly human-centric. Also, if you want us not to stuff words in your mouth (which I haven't quite yet, I was talking about the people saying we're horrible and don't deserve to live) but you certainly have done so to me at least once when you claimed I said our killing didn't matter because it's not as bad as world wide catastrophes. I'm out of this argument because no one's going to change your mind.

[Serpentine]

"Would you rather us just kill ourselves off and be done with it? Because I can promise you or anyone else who would like us to go that route..."
Jus' sayin'.

You have certainly been leading me to believe that you think it doesn't matter how many species we destroy because planet-wounding catastrophes can do it better, and you have yet to even hint at a possibility that this is not the case. If it is not, then by all means explain to me exactly what it is you do mean when you keep on repeating the comparison between the significantly increased rates of extinction since humanity became a big deal and asteroids that almost destroyed the planet.

edit: Lets look at it this way: the best thing in nature you have to compare humanity to in terms of the power to drive huge numbers of species extinct is geological catastrophes. Personally, when it gets to that point, I think we're doing something pretty wrong.

SotS: I am glad to hear it, and glad to have it reinforced for me that that's your true feelings on the matter.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Hey, like I said. I have a passion for the past and clarity. That doesn't make me a soulless bastard. =P

[Serpentine]

Mm. It's just easy to get bogged down into the details of an argument, so it's handy for the wider view of true opinions on the big picture to be repeated occasionally.

[Starwulf]

Humans should try to save as many species as we can. That is, to me, unarguable- it is our DUTY.


A duty to save species that WE endangered in the first place? Yes. A duty to save a species that we had no noticeable effect/impact on? No. Nature has a plan, and if a species was on it's way out without us causing a discernible impact on it, then we should just let it be, because Nature didn't want it around.

[Shadow of the Sun]

...no.

Nature doesn't have a "plan". It just is. You can't ascribe human concepts too it, unless you're talking theology, at which point it's a different ballpark.

[Serpentine]

Yeah... Nature isn't concious.
Moreover, I don't know how many endangered species there are, at least that we know about, that we haven't had some impact on, outside perhaps of things like those aquifer-dwelling species that were never found anywhere else anyway.

[Starwulf]

...no.

Nature doesn't have a "plan". It just is. You can't ascribe human concepts too it, unless you're talking theology, at which point it's a different ballpark.

not so much Theology, as in just that the Earth(and nature) weeds out the weak, and makes way for the strong(ie: Darwins theory). If a species is going extinct and we had nothing(or very little) to do with it, I personally don't think we should get involved and protect it. There is a reason why that weaker species is dying off. You protect it, you're just prolonging the inevitable, and perhaps slowing down evolution itself. Perhaps the stronger species needs it gone so it can evolve into something better, or perhaps the weaker one is just, as someone else said, having it's gene pool polluted, and it's evolving itself into something stronger. Hindering Nature in it's natural processes you could say, much like we do by making other species go extinct that wouldn't be with us not around.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Starwulf: I'm going to say, right now, that that is based on a very limited view of evolutionary theory.

Most of the significant mutations that cause adaptation occur MILLIONS of years before they're actually expressed.

Also, evolution does not occur between species. You're conflating them, which is wrong.

[Feytalist]

Hi.

So this thread has gone off topic very quickly. Just a quick bit of info, since I don't see it anywhere mentioned yet: there are still about 300 black rhinos left. Most of them in conservation and rehabilitation areas, but they're hanging in there. And the Southern white they talked about, there are about 40 of them left.

I'm not quite sure where the extinction cut-off point is, or if they would be able to manage to increase their numbers, but they're not quite gone yet.

[Serpentine]

I'm very glad to hear there's still some left in captivity.
There is a distinction made between "extinct in the wild" and "extinct for good". I believe there are one or two examples of species being rehabilitated back into the wild after extinction outside captivity, so maybe there is hope for the rhino. The main trouble, most of the time, is that whatever it is that wiped them out is still going on - you can't just plonk a couple out there again if their habitat's gone or the poaches are still there.
But still, even a very low population isn't necessarily a death sentence (although it certainly doesn't help [/understatement]). There's evidence that cheetahs, for example, were once reduced to maybe 30 members. The lack of genetic diversity amongst them is still a concern, but they're a viable species again.

[kpenguin]

And the Southern white they talked about, there are about 40 of them left.

Uh. Are you sure you're talking about the southern white rhino? Because they're one of the biggest conservation success stories ever. Sure, there were under a hundred such rhinos at beginning of the twentieth century, but now there are, like, fourteen-thousand.

[KingLemmiwinks]

The problem with discussions like these is that the whole "oh man that adorable, large animal that we all grew up learning about is dead now" concept tends to collect people in two distinct groups, vaguely identifiable along the "oh man we are killing these animals, humans are jerks" and "they're cute but we need to make progress and can't make it without killin' them accidentally." It's just an IMMENSE oversimplification.

First of all, if you would do a survey of people in the world, you're not going to find people that are like "YEAH SCREW THAT RHINO, WHAT USE WAS HE". People, in general, really like animals and would ideally have us all living in harmony. So people who are one way or the other aren't "animal haters" by an means.

Second, the issue is preposterously complex. This is not a case of humans arriving and always disrupting ecosystems that have been in balance forever; sometimes, we stumble in during the middle of an environment change and get to watch it happen.

For example, let's peruse the Dark Ages. In an era before humans were capable of affecting climate on a global scale, there were several hundred years of significantly cooler weather, primarily recorded in Europe. This resulted in the migration of species towards the equator, flushing out the existing species in favor of colder-weather ones. When the temperature rose, some of them hung around - continuing to displace the native species.

People like to focus on the big animals with regards to endangered species, but it's important to remember that the majority of fluctuations within environments are not easily recognized - heck, most of them are in the flora rather than the fauna. Flora changes with much greater rapidity than the fauna, and is less adaptive to the changes of mankind, in general. Look at how invasive plant species propagate; Purple Loosestrife has swept across the North American continent in YEARS rather than decades, and settles into water-cover habitats and easily beats out the "natural" plants there, destroying acre after acre of wetlands in a matter of a year or two. Kudzu has expanded across the American south, knocking out dozens of species of lowland subtropical grasses in the process, over the same time period.

"But Lemmiwinks," you say, "Those are invasive species! Of course they do that, we don't want to prevent people from trying to eliminate those!" But how many of you would want to wipe out the herds of wild horses in the great plains? Hello, invasive species. How about the common housecat? Also an invasive! Anyone like corndogs? I have bad news; pigs are invasive, cows are invasive, corn is invasive. Europeans, I wouldn't get used to peppers, some mushrooms, or tomatoes. All non-native plants, which easily displace native plants when left to their own devices. Hope you don't like spices or sauces, either. And Ireland? Good thing you had that potato famine, guys! Non-native, invasive species!

All of them are invasive species, but there's not the slightest possibility you could hammer them out of the regions that they've moved into; they're dominant and they're crucial for humans in the region. And yet, we (usually) brought them there, intentionally or unintentionally, and they were responsible for the extinction of species.

The problem isn't humanity; it's that the world has thousands of ecosystems and they're constantly in flux, with species moving in and wiping out competitors all the time. Toying with the process too extensively can result in havoc. For example, the Northeastern and Midwest United States suffered a pretty steep population drop in deer due to colonization; restrictions tried to rectify that. It resulted in a population boom, which caused the deer (now with less predators due to the migration of the large cats westward and the hunting of the wolves) to wipe out several extensive areas of low forests, along with a considerable amount of the native birches, due to their lignification process. They also hurt the oak savannah (a now relatively rare ecosystem) pretty heavily in their quest for food. Whoops!

Basically, as the world interacts with itself, species spread and fall back. Some of them die. What we NEED to watch are keystone species, that have "purposes" in the ecosystem that cannot be easily replicated by another species, yet are threatened due to overlap in territory with other species. Examples of this are the large raptor species (primarily fish eagles like ospreys and bald eagles), bees (other insects simply do not have the sheer pollination scale to compete), whales (large-scale marine predators), and certain niche predators (cheetahs are probably the most important example). As hard as it is to hear, the vast majority of species aren't "unique" with most of their genome; variations within the rodent population are fairly easily replaced by one another. But if you accidentally do something to the predators of rodents (such as the destruction of habitats for raptors in 20th century Australia), you cripple the ability of the environ to control things - thus the crazy mice/rat plagues they have had in the past.

Remember that a lot of species aren't going to sit there and take it - they develop defenses and adapt, just as quickly as mankind can in many cases. Already, species of native trees are beginning to develop the ability to release anti-competitive chemicals into their soil. Foxes and raccoon exist - and THRIVE in urban and suburban environments. Heck, one of the big four species almost extinguished by the DDT issue - the peregrine falcon - does BETTER in human environs than in the plains and forests they replaced! (they flippin' love tall urban structures. Large open areas to hunt prey, places to build nests that predators can't reach, and tons of prey? Sign me up!)

If anything, the most important thing that humanity needs to do is watch what we CREATE rather than what we destroy. Crossbred tropical grasses (like corn, which is one of only 3 carbon-4 consuming species) are a moderate threat, capable of moving into grassland areas relatively easily, but they won't be busting into the tundra anytime soon. Compare this to superbacterias that are effectively being "bred" by humans; they can survive in any environment and can kill most animal species living there. Situations where a disease would effectively slaughter an isolated population and then die out due to lack of propagation are effectively gone; instead, we keep them alive and spread. It's basically a cataclysm waiting to happen.

But once again, the entire situation is insanely complex. To oversimplify that humans are destroying the world or that we should just ignore the extinctions is a bad path to tread.

Nothing is black or white, all are shades of grey.

[Feytalist]

Of course, rhino horn poaching is a huge (understatement) problem, and a definite factor in their low numbers. So perhaps captivity is the best place for them to be, for the moment.

There is one interesting case I know regarding bringing animals back from extinction: the mountain kwagga, a silly little donkey type thing that has been extinct since the 1890s. It had the head of a zebra, stripes and all, and the flanks of a donkey, stripeless and all. Course, science cheated a bit: they cloned the thing from a bit of dna recovered from a kwagga skin. It was only an experiment, of course, and they only cloned the one. So it's extinct again :C

In other news, I just found out there's a Wikipedia in my native language. Oh how I laughed. Relevant article (and photo) here (http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwagga) (the article only really describes the kwagga, so no harm done).

Edit:


Uh. Are you sure you're talking about the southern white rhino? Because they're one of the biggest conservation success stories ever. Sure, there were under a hundred such rhinos at beginning of the twentieth century, but now there are, like, fourteen-thousand.

Huh. Hang on, that sounds right. There is a white rhino that's just about done for, though. I assumed it's the Southern one, since that's where I am. Time for research, I suppose, heh.

Edit the second: Northern White. That's the one. I was certain they were found in South Africa as well, though. Strange.

[Starwulf]

Starwulf: I'm going to say, right now, that that is based on a very limited view of evolutionary theory.

Most of the significant mutations that cause adaptation occur MILLIONS of years before they're actually expressed.

Also, evolution does not occur between species. You're conflating them, which is wrong.

Actually, I was merely regurgitating someone's earlier idea in the thread, that the removal of one species might lead way to another one evolving. IIRC, they specifically mentioned that "Maybe a super-gazelle that is incredibly aggressive may take the rhino's place". I merely used it as part of my argument that we shouldn't help save a species that's going out if we had nothing to do with it. so if you want to criticize someone, start with them ^^. Other then that, I do see your point, with the mutations happening millions of years before they are expressed, I guess one species causing another to evolve is unlikely(I won't say impossible, as I firmly believe almost nothing is impossible).

Also, good to hear that the Black Rhinos aren't actually extinct yet. With 300 left, it seems odd they would be considered to be so, is there really no way of them making a comeback with those kinds of numbers?

[Serpentine]

"But Lemmiwinks," you say, "Those are invasive species! Of course they do that, we don't want to prevent people from trying to eliminate those!" But how many of you would want to wipe out the herds of wild horses in the great plains? Hello, invasive species. How about the common housecat? Also an invasive! Anyone like corndogs? I have bad news; pigs are invasive, cows are invasive, corn is invasive. Europeans, I wouldn't get used to peppers, some mushrooms, or tomatoes. All non-native plants, which easily displace native plants when left to their own devices. Hope you don't like spices or sauces, either. And Ireland? Good thing you had that potato famine, guys! Non-native, invasive species!I would like to point out that the problem is not merely the introduction of non-native species to a new area, but how drastically they impact the environment into which they've been introduced. The horses of the US, I would imagine, don't have too much impact: they're pretty much just replacing the bison that were nearly wiped out by humans. Similarly, as far as I'm aware wild corn doesn't turn into a weed, and same for chilis, mushrooms etc (though I do wonder how much research has gone into these things...).
In Australia, attempts are being made to try to wipe out wild cats and cattle, because they're bad for the environment. Just because, as you said, they are invasive - but more than that, they're harmful. But, say, roses are not considered pests for all they're "invasive" species, because they're not tough enough to take off and take over on their own.

(you mentioned bees. Australian native bees, which mostly don't sting, are being driven out by European honey bees, which are also not as good at pollinating native plants. It's illegal to put bee hives in a national park, but not to put it right next to one, and it's harming our ecosystems, albeit to a more subtle and less swift degree than various other invasive species here)

If you want a really good "shades of grey" example, have a look at the Australian populations of water buffalo (iirc) and camels. We have the largest wild populations of those species in the world, which are actually endangered in the wild where they come from. I'm not sure about the effect of camels on the environment, but I'd guess that at least they compete with kangaroos, but I'm pretty sure water buffalo are bad for our water systems. So what's more important? The maintainance of a secure wild population of an endangered species, or the native ecosystem they now call home?
(personally, where possible, I think it's both: keep them here where they're safe until their homelands are secure enough for some to be returned there, but monitor their impacts here and do what we can to mitigate them)

[Feytalist]

Nothing is black or white, all are shades of grey.

Except rhinos, heehee :smallbiggrin:


Also, good to hear that the Black Rhinos aren't actually extinct yet. With 300 left, it seems odd they would be considered to be so, is there really no way of them making a comeback with those kinds of numbers?

As Serps said, a distinction is made between "extinct in the wild" and "extinct everywhere for ever". And poaching really is a big problem. I'm quite certain that if those 300 are let into the wild today, by next week there will be none left. So it's probably better their numbers are build up slowly in reservations an such for the time being.

[Serpentine]

Aren't African Rhinos grey? :smalltongue:
(or are they the black rhinos? <.<)

[Juggling Goth]

Regarding cloning dead stuff. It's being looked into and genetic banks are being made. The technology is still very immature for it to take off though. Three problems with this approach to consider though. 1) Hurray, you brought a species back from the dead! Crack the bottle open! It went over the fence due to habitat destruction... where are you going to reintroduce it? 2) How are you going to teach it to survive? and 3) your animals are most likely going to be lacking genetic diversity as they are derived from a small number of specimens, this is very bad in the short term, but as mutation takes off will be ameliorated in a few to a few thousand years depending on its reproduction rate... if it's going to be able to breed...

Thanks for posting this. The cloning argument worries me a lot. I mean, ten years ago or more, they were getting real excited about bringing back the Tasmanian Tiger through cloning. Anyone see any Tasmanian Tigers around? No, cos it wasn't possible. To quote the Wikipedia article on the 1999 cloning project:
Several microbiologists have dismissed the project as a public relations stunt and its chief proponent, Professor Mike Archer, received a 2002 nomination for the Australian Skeptics Bent Spoon Award for "the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudo-scientific piffle."

To those points I would add:

5) Your animal is part of an ecosystem. You bring back one, you have to bring back everything in that area. This is unlikely; people are gonna focus on popular megafauna. And you can't just introduce an interesting predator to an area - look at released mink in England, or the rats introduced to New Zealand that nearly wiped out the kakapo.

6) If we adopt the attitude that "oh it's fine, we can always clone them", our behaviour is going to get worse, not better. This is especially dangerous since people already think this (thanks, media!) and we can't clone them. If we think we have an easy fix, we're a lot less likely to do the hard work of solving the underlying problem, and that's not good.

Edit: Speaking of introducing predators, there's a poster above talking about extinctions humanity had nothing to do with and what happened before we industrialised. Well... yes and no. It's hard to measure. Our ability to cause extinctions isn't just through hunting and roadkill and climate change. One pregnant rat sneaks aboard your pre-industrial boat (and really, show me the boat that didn't have rats), and you have the ability to wipe out several species wherever you land, and you didn't even know about it. Did you do it on purpose? No. But it wouldn't have happened if you'd stayed home.

[Rising Phoenix]

Thanks for posting this. The cloning argument worries me a lot. I mean, ten years ago or more, they were getting real excited about bringing back the Tasmanian Tiger through cloning. Anyone see any Tasmanian Tigers around? No, cos it wasn't possible. To quote the Wikipedia article on the 1999 cloning project:

To those points I would add:

5) Your animal is part of an ecosystem. You bring back one, you have to bring back everything in that area. This is unlikely; people are gonna focus on popular megafauna. And you can't just introduce an interesting predator to an area - look at released mink in England, or the rats introduced to New Zealand that nearly wiped out the kakapo.

6) If we adopt the attitude that "oh it's fine, we can always clone them", our behaviour is going to get worse, not better. This is especially dangerous since people already think this (thanks, media!) and we can't clone them. If we think we have an easy fix, we're a lot less likely to do the hard work of solving the underlying problem, and that's not good.

Edit: Speaking of introducing predators, there's a poster above talking about extinctions humanity had nothing to do with and what happened before we industrialised. Well... yes and no. It's hard to measure. Our ability to cause extinctions isn't just through hunting and roadkill and climate change. One pregnant rat sneaks aboard your pre-industrial boat (and really, show me the boat that didn't have rats), and you have the ability to wipe out several species wherever you land, and you didn't even know about it. Did you do it on purpose? No. But it wouldn't have happened if you'd stayed home.

Cloning should be the very last and desperate line of defense against extinction. Until we streamline the technology to make it actually work AND make it cheaper, we are better off spending limited funds goverments are willing to direct towards conservation on extant species and ecosystems.

Also I agree 100% on everything that Serp said.

[Draconi Redfir]

Hi.

So this thread has gone off topic very quickly. Just a quick bit of info, since I don't see it anywhere mentioned yet: there are still about 300 black rhinos left. Most of them in conservation and rehabilitation areas, but they're hanging in there. And the Southern white they talked about, there are about 40 of them left.

I'm not quite sure where the extinction cut-off point is, or if they would be able to manage to increase their numbers, but they're not quite gone yet.

From what i have read the Black Rhinos are a separate entity from the Western Black Rhino which is what went extinct, the Western Black is a subspecies to the Black, and while we may be able to introduce normal Black Rhino's in the Western's place, the Western Black is gone for good.

[Feytalist]

There are a few subspecies of black rhino, denoted by where they originated. Most of these can still be found in the wild. The Western Black specifically is the one I was talking about. I know because there was a special news programme on South African television a few months back about them saying that there were only a few (about 300) left in various conservation camps. Unless they all suddenly died out over the past few months, there should still be a few left.

I actually remember now reading about it in a local newspaper as well. I might even be able to find it still.

[Rising Phoenix]

So it is devolving into a "I hate humans" thread. Good grief. I'm beginning to wonder if people remember what species they are.

I agree with the person who said that on the grand scale of things, what we do is insignificant even though it may be significant in the present.

As others have said, hardly.

However, there are very solid reasons to be very, very concerned that humans are not doing what is in their best interest. We need to take responsibility for our actions. Most importantly we need to change how we think.

Obligatory videos that everyone should watch:

State of the Planet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEiT-RR8eXs) (It's Sir David!:smallsmile:)

HOME (http://www.youtube.com/user/homeproject?blend=1&ob=4#p/a/f/0/jqxENMKaeCU)

The Story of Stuff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8)

And (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Pigeon) it's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritius_Kestrel) not (http://cms.iucn.org/index.cfm?uNewsID=1413) all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Condor) gloom and doom. People (http://seahorse.fisheries.ubc.ca/) like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_ranching_in_Papua_New_Guinea) you and me are trying to fix things.

Yeah I was going to find a success story for every word, but I cannot be bothered :P.

[Mixt]

{Scrubbed}

[drakir_nosslin]

{Scrubbed the post, scrub the quote}

Seriously. No, they don't. They need to be stopped, yes. But it's a big difference between stopping someone and killing. That goes for anyone, human or animal.

[Draconi Redfir]

Poachers as people aren't inherently evil either, what they do is wrong and they should be punished yes, but it's not uncommon for someone to kill/capture animals illegally in order to raise money to feed their village or something like that. Yes their are other ways they should have chosen, but for some reason poaching was their choice, be it because it was easy, high-paying, or simply convenient since the animal lives nearby.

Yes, some may do it for the lulz or to make a quick buck, some may do it because they find it entertaining, and some may do it because they just like shooting guns. But others still have a proper motive and while deserving of punishment, also deserve a second chance. they may have done something horrible and wrong, but sometimes it's the only choice they get, think they get, or feel will solve their problems.

[The Succubus]

But hey, at least we got this really cool rhino horn jewellery out of it, right? :smallsigh:

The problem isn't poachers, the problem is that there is a moron market for poachers to cater to.

[paddyfool]

The history of human-induced extinctions seems to have three chapters:

The first was the mass extinctions caused by our simple arrival (as shown in that graph of megafauna; the extent on the effect on smaller species is understandably harder to measure)

The second was a series of smaller impacts as various new groups of people arrived in areas previously inhabited by another group with a different way of living to which the surviving wildlife had more or less adapted. A big part of these smaller impacts related to the domesticated animals unleashed upon local ecosystems, particularly cats, pigs, dogs etc.

And the third, which we are seeing today, sees a gradual attrition of ecosystems on the large scale from the rapid expansion of our overall population and resource use over the past 200 years or so. Many surviving ecologies, and the niches which exist within them remain only on small "islands" in the way of nature reserves, which may be protected to greater or lesser extents. Most species going extinct today are believed to be too small to even be noticed or recorded before they're gone; arthropods in areas of jungle being burned for grazing land or cut down for palm oil plantations, for instance. Where large, visible animals are under threat, it's usually where their parts fetch a high price on the market (e.g. in the case of rhinos and tigers, for their use in Chinese medicine), and in many cases, they're under threat "in the wild", but also have a population in captivity with a much greater chance of continued existence. Deforestation, polllution, overfishing, desertification, hunting, and the introduction of invasive species are all still taking some kind of toll; but estimates differ on whether it's a few hundred or 10,000 times the background rate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#Ongoing_Holocene_extinction)

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread locked for review.