Extinction: Is it really bad?

[herpguy]

In light of two threads, one of which was getting off-topic, I have decided to create this thread about extiction. My question to all of you is Is extinction actually bad?

 

If I were asked this question, I would say, "Yes of course it is." But then I would begin to think of all the natural occuring mass-extinctions, and probably change my answer to, "It is if humans kill them for more money than they already have."

 

So what's your take on this?

[ecoli]

Ummm...I don't agree. If idiots shoot them, then they're not surviving are they?

 

Because human's kill for sport/fun.

 

I've heard this argument before. You're claiming that humans evolved the ability to make weapons, so killing them, for whatever reason, is merely an extension of evolution.

 

But, then, is not our ability to show compasion for animals also an evolved trait?

 

By using your logic, saving an animals life is as much an evolutionary advantage as killing them. Perhaps more so, because keeping the planet diverse in terms of speciation, will benefit us more in the long term, then killing animals for sport or for their land.

 

IF we think we humans are the 'top of the food chain' maybe we should take some responsibility, for other animals and for mother nature, along with that.

[herpguy]

Besides, we don't take up that much space. That's another tired old argument. When's the last time you've taken a road trip? Seen a satellite snap shot of Earth? Green all over the place. I don't see any concrete in those pictures.

 

Ummm, look at Google Earth. There's unnatural brown and grey everywhere. And it's not just what's left now, it's the rate we're destroying what's left now. Compare a satellite photo of the Amazon compared to one 30 years ago. Hmmm...

[reor]

I agree that we shouldn't extinct species, but i'm against putting animals over people like some fanatics do. I also believe extincting species give room to new species.

[walrusman]

I find it interesting that everybody wants to save cute fluffy animals about to go extinct, but I don't see anybody rescuing the endangered insect species going extinct almost daily.

 

Also, we don't drive species extinct because of sport / fun killing. That's silly. Again, we might drive the nail in the coffin because of it, but if a particular animal's numbers are so low that the relatively small number of inbred murderous hillbilly's can kill them into extinction, then they were on the way out anyway.

 

I will also add, that ethical hunting has actually increased the numbers of game animals. In Oklahoma, about a decade ago, you could only shoot one Buck and one doe. Now, I think it's 3 bucks and 5 does, or something crazy like that. Because they've done such a good job at managing the wildlife, they've increased their numbers almost too much. They are even allowing crossbow hunting during bow season, trying to get the population down. This is completely paid for by hunters. Everytime you buy a tag, a license..etc - that money goes to fund the wildlife management.

 

Ethical hunters are usually lovers of wildlife and outdoors.

[ecoli]

I find it interesting that everybody wants to save cute fluffy animals about to go extinct' date=' but I don't see anybody rescuing the endangered insect species going extinct almost daily.

 

Also, we don't drive species extinct because of sport / fun killing. That's silly. Again, we might drive the nail in the coffin because of it, but if a particular animal's numbers are so low that the relatively small number of inbred murderous hillbilly's can kill them into extinction, then they were on the way out anyway.

 

I will also add, that ethical hunting has actually increased the numbers of game animals. In Oklahoma, about a decade ago, you could only shoot one Buck and one doe. Now, I think it's 3 bucks and 5 does, or something crazy like that. Because they've done such a good job at managing the wildlife, they've increased their numbers almost too much. They are even allowing crossbow hunting during bow season, trying to get the population down. This is completely paid for by hunters. Everytime you buy a tag, a license..etc - that money goes to fund the wildlife management.

 

Ethical hunters are usually lovers of wildlife and outdoors.[/quote']

 

For every species, like deer, that's experiancing a population burst, there's a dozen more that are being wiped out. Due to hunting, but mostly due to habitat destruction.

 

 

Oh... and nice strawman about the fluffy animals... I can't recall anyone saying that they don't care about endangered insects. Why don't you start replying to our ACTUAL arguments.

[walrusman]

For every species, like deer, that's experiancing a population burst, there's a dozen more that are being wiped out.

 

You're reaching for anything you can make up now... Ok, since deer are experiencing the population burst, name the 12 that are being wiped out right now. They should be on the endangered list obviously...

 

 

Oh... and nice strawman about the fluffy animals... I can't recall anyone saying that they don't care about endangered insects. Why don't you start replying to our ACTUAL arguments.

 

I wasn't replying to your arguments necessarily. But in all my life of listening to this rhetoric I've never heard anyone speak a word, not once, about protecting endangered insects or any other unnattractive icky animal. They always ramble on about how much we can learn from the fluffy cute animal that isn't fit to survive in this world any longer. Go ahead and keep building yourself up on your hypocritical soap box.

[AzurePhoenix]

You're reaching for anything you can make up now... Ok, since deer are experiencing the population burst, name the 12 that are being wiped out right now. They should be on the endangered list obviously...

A few hundred species of frogs, tigers, clouded leopards, black rhinoceros, asian rhinos too, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans, the ivory billed woodpecker, the gharial, pandas (though they seem to be doing a bit better now), sable antelope, manatees, and those are simply a very large sampling of the large vertebrates commonly known. Get down to insects, crustaceans, small fish, countless arthropods of all types, and you can tack on a few thousand more.

 

In contrast, there are very FEW species experiencing population booms as a result of human interference.

 

They always ramble on about how much we can learn from the fluffy cute animal that isn't fit to survive in this world any longer. Go ahead and keep building yourself up on your hypocritical soap box.

This is a blatant misconception that as far as I can tell is based on YOU relying on the media for your world view. Most true biologists and conservationists are extremely aware and concerned of all such critters. The media oversight arises from the easy-to-sell ratings pleasing airtime given to the species the GENERAL PUBLIC loves. An utterly ignorant general public I might add. You'll notice that a true environmentalist makes a fuss over the environment as a whole, rather than a specific species, with the goal of maintaining the entire ecosystem.

 

You'll also notice that there are comparatively few large vertebrates at all compared to "creepy crawlies." They are easier to idenitfy and recognize on a common basis because there aren't thousands upon thousands of them

[AzurePhoenix]

If I were asked this question, I would say, "Yes of course it is." But then I would begin to think of all the natural occuring mass-extinctions, and probably change my answer to, "It is if humans kill them for more money than they already have."

I see it as being divided into three generic brands of extinction;

 

1. Extinction is an inevitable fate for most species, and while it's unfortunate it's a perfectly natural and key part of any ecosystem, even important to the development of new species by whichever of several courses. Its even inevitable that even an idealized humanity would kill off a few. Such things can't be helped, they're part of the natural course of life.

 

2. Now, when a catclysmic extinction occurs, it's rather more unfortunate yes, but in most cases, nothing could possibly be done to stop it. And I'd say yes, if you think you've got a shot, go ahead and try to stop it, not just to save a few species from extinction, but simply to save the world we inhabit and depend on.

 

3. Then there is the kind of devestation humanity spreads. Countless species falling beneath an onslaught of habitat destruction, contamination of the environment (whether through transplanted species, pollution, or whatever), exploitation and possibly exploitation of the species themselves. There is no acceptably valid reason for this to go on or to be allowed. Some might say that is all is part of human survival, but I disagree, I say simple survival doesn't have to be so influential, and might not have to be; this is about satisfying greed, manifested in human economics for no other reason than people WANT more stuff or luxuries because they're bored from not even having to try to survive (in many societies).

 

Now, some might say that there is no "reason" behind anything anyway, so what's it matter? Well I say that humans ahve the capacity to create their own reasons, to understand some version of right and wrong, and that it is irresponsible and damned childish to ignore that, to just go about self-centeredly worrying about their ultimately frivolous income. We have the ability to appreciate something, to place our own value in something, and that in itself I believe gives other living species above all other things their own intrinsic value from teh human frame of reference, their own importance in our world, and thus the right to exist and be treated as our own kin and coinhabitants of the planet.

 

We don't need to be the prtoectors of the world, it isn't required of us by no means, but shouldn't we at least excercise our ability to judge right and wrong and at the very least not destroy everything? And where we've already raped and pillaged the world, that is where I say we should focus our efforts to try and fix the damage we've caused. Of course, by this point, that's most of the this damn space-rock anyway.

[herpguy]

Wow, I hate how all of these organisms are being wiped out right now. Think of all those insects, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, arachnids, and all of those other life forms that we scarcely know a thing about.

 

Sure, I'm bad at making points. I know that. But I think you understand what I'm getting at.

[mooeypoo]

Wow, I hate how all of these organisms are being wiped out right now. Think of all those insects, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, arachnids, and all of those other life forms that we scarcely know a thing about.

 

Sure, I'm bad at making points. I know that. But I think you understand what I'm getting at.

 

Actually... no... I don't understand your point.. are you suggesting that since we don't know these organisms we should'nt care about their extinction?

[Steph]

I have a question...

 

what is the difference between extinction due to an infectious disease or extinction due to human expansion... I can think of two : the fact that we are part of the agent, and the scope of it...

 

at any rate... the natural Vs human part is irrelevent. Extinction should be prevented. I mean, If a meteorite was heading for antartica or another uninhabited area with the possibility of wiping out a species, should we let it go (assuming we have the means to stop it)?

[AzurePhoenix]

what is the difference between extinction due to an infectious disease or extinction due to human expansion... I can think of two : the fact that we are part of the agent, and the scope of it...

Basically I see it as a question of our responsibility in the matter based on extinctions caused by our own rather ravenous exploitation of resources we don't really need to exploit, vs the more natural extinction of one species being outdone by another in the very arms race that shapes life on earth, just trying to survive.

 

at any rate... the natural Vs human part is irrelevent. Extinction should be prevented. I mean, If a meteorite was heading for antartica or another uninhabited area with the possibility of wiping out a species, should we let it go (assuming we have the means to stop it)?

For a global extinction event, I agree we should do our best to try to stop it, whether or not the intent is to save the whole world or just ourselves and the world by association.

 

As for preventing extinction on the scale of nature on a more single-species level, a species being outdone by another species, or just not faring well in survival, then I say let nature take the course it has been for billions of years, we have no right to tamper in what doesn't concern us (as long as we didn't CAUSE whatever threatened the species, even indirectly). Then again, maybe the dying species is useful to us, so it might be in our better interest to step in and see what we can do. Then again, it might turn out the only way to do so might not be fair to the other species of organism possibly involved and responsible forthe threat to the species we're protecting, so I'd be rather hesistant.

[SkepticLance]

Since this is the science forum, and scientists are supposed to be keen on accurate numbers, let me spout a couple.

 

Environmental organisations are prone to wild exaggeration. For example : Greenpeace once declared that 50% of all plants and animals will be extinct in 50 years. No-one knows how many such species exist, but an average kind of estimate is about 20 million. 50% extinct in 50 years means we are wiping out 200,000 species per year.

 

Hey, let's get a reality check. The actual number of species that are KNOWN to go extinct are 2 per year on average. That is : species that were known to exist a decade or two back and are now gone. Sure, there will be lots of extinctions that we do not know about. But to go from 2 per year to 200,000?? Pull my other leg. It plays Yankee Doodle.

 

Now for a calculation based on a couple of admitedly shaky assumptions. If we assume that 2 million species are known, and 20 million exist, then the ratio of known to unknown extinctions is 1 to 10. If that is true, then the total number of extinctions will be 20 per year. Question those assumptions and extend the limits, and we are still going to get less than 100 per year, even including the insects and 'icky' creatures.

[walrusman]

Basically I see it as a question of our responsibility in the matter based on extinctions caused by our own rather ravenous exploitation of resources we don't really need to exploit, vs the more natural extinction of one species being outdone by another in the very arms race that shapes life on earth, just trying to survive.

 

 

 

It may be ravenous exploitation in north america, europe, southeast asia...but what about Afghanistan? Most of Africa? These people are in the very arms race you speak of. You say that humans have mastered survival, but that's too broad a generalization because not ALL humans have mastered survival. For half the world, it's still a survival challenge out there. War and famine make it tough to live and Africa is infamous for it. Poachers aren't usually rich guys murdering for fun - they're poor people trying to live. Not that I condone it, but it's the truth.

 

And alot of those animals on your list are mainly in Africa are they not?

 

You're looking at things from a spoiled rich american's point of view rather than people who really have to earn their right to live. We don't understand that over here in America.

 

This is a blatant misconception that as far as I can tell is based on YOU relying on the media for your world view. Most true biologists and conservationists are extremely aware and concerned of all such critters. The media oversight arises from the easy-to-sell ratings pleasing airtime given to the species the GENERAL PUBLIC loves. An utterly ignorant general public I might add. You'll notice that a true environmentalist makes a fuss over the environment as a whole, rather than a specific species, with the goal of maintaining the entire ecosystem.

 

Oh believe me, I know a true environmentalist's goal is to maintain the entire ecosystem - maintain it right out of existence. Man still doesn't know how leave things alone that he doesn't FULLY understand...yes a very ignorant public.

 

Anyway, I actually completely agree that most of the true environmentalists out there are not exclusive about the wildlife they fight for, but I still see more fuss over more common creatures. And I don't watch corporate news, so I don't know what fuzzy creatures they're pimping you.

 

The thing is, it all comes down to my original point whether you all like or not. If what you all say is true, about us destroying the ecosystem to the point of our own demise, then we don't deserve to live, do we?

[Dak]

Environmental organisations are prone to wild exaggeration. For example : Greenpeace once declared that 50% of all plants and animals will be extinct in 50 years. No-one knows how many such species exist, but an average kind of estimate is about 20 million. 50% extinct in 50 years means we are wiping out 200,000 species per year.

 

That assumes that the rate of extinction is going to be constant over the 50 years, which is likely not to be the case. If greenpeace were arguing that the rate of extinction is going to increase, then way less than 200K species could be expected to be currently going extinct per year.

 

Question those assumptions and extend the limits, and we are still going to get less than 100 per year, even including the insects and 'icky' creatures.

 

Are you implying that that's acceptable?

 

I'm pretty sure that <<<100 new species emerge per year.

[AzurePhoenix]

but what about Afghanistan? Most of Africa? These people are in the very arms race you speak of. You say that humans have mastered survival, but that's too broad a generalization because not ALL humans have mastered survival.

no one ever said to the contrary, I know I plainly indicated that the economic-factor was not an all-encompassing rule. But, as regarding habitat loss, small, self-sufficient communities and people actually pose little threat. The agrilcultural threat comes from major large scale operations that just so happen to utilize the labor of these same people for a larger economic goal. In my eyes at least that's also the essential difference between a poacher killing a rhino to sell its horn and a congo-native killing a chimp to eat its meat. Now, I full well understand that it's not very sensitive of me to judge the poacher so harshly, but fact is I don't give a damn. To me, when you leave the hunting and gathering lifestyle to play the economic game, you should have to take on a few extra responsibilities and make some sacrifices.

 

And alot of those animals on your list are mainly in Africa are they not?

yes, five, and maybe a few hundred frogs. And I might as well point out that those three apes are all suffering for very similar reasons and in rather similar proximity, so it's not as if they show a great range of africa. If you like I could go in and jot up a more comprehensive list with less bias for continent if you'd like, rather than foolishly pretend that the bare handful I mentioned is somehow representative of the majority.

 

You're looking at things from a spoiled rich american's point of view rather than people who really have to earn their right to live. We don't understand that over here in America.

Not so much really. I come from a low income agrilculturally supported family, one that hit hard times and lost their land and the means by which we supported ourselves for well over two centuries, or from the angle of my native family line, who had even harder times trying to survive off of meager sheep herds in the deserts of the Navajo Nation region. I understand what it's like. But I don't think that a hard life gives someone a free pass to do what they please and by any means necessary, especially if they aren't going to be responsible about it.

 

Oh believe me, I know a true environmentalist's goal is to maintain the entire ecosystem - maintain it right out of existence. Man still doesn't know how leave things alone that he doesn't FULLY understand...yes a very ignorant public.

I'm curious as to what the hell you're trying to say right here.

 

Anyway, I actually completely agree that most of the true environmentalists out there are not exclusive about the wildlife they fight for, but I still see more fuss over more common creatures.

Again, because programs that feature such species draw in the public, they get the funds; more often than not breeding and rescue programs for reintroduction, yes. All too often it does come down to economics. But then again, these are species that are more likely to be infected directly, actively targeted for hunting and such, making such programs more viable for their particular needs. For many of the "lesser" species as some might consider them, their threat comes from habitat destruction. If you could breed them, where would you put them? For them, the only real hope is preservation and restoration of the habitat itself.

 

If what you all say is true, about us destroying the ecosystem to the point of our own demise, then we don't deserve to live, do we?

This obsession with 'deserving' of yours just isn't making sense to me. I'm curious, what's your whole "theology," and what's it's premise? I really do want to understand where you're coming from.

[AzurePhoenix]

double post

[SkepticLance]

Daks.

Your comment about extinction rate not being constant over the 50 years really does not make much difference. My point was that the rate of extinction was wildly exaggerated, as expressed by Greenpeace. This is true regardless of whether extinction rate is constant or not.

 

 

Dak said :

 

Are you implying that that's acceptable?

 

There was no value judgement in anything I said. The loss of even one species is a tragedy. I was just trying to knock the exaggerations.

 

no one ever said to the contrary, I know I plainly indicated that the economic-factor was not an all-encompassing rule. But, as regarding habitat loss, small, self-sufficient communities and people actually pose little threat. .

 

Azure Phoenix.

You are falling into the 'noble savage' trap. There is nothing special about people being primitive in their technology. They still cause extinctions. The greatest extinction event in the history of humankind was that caused by polynesians crossing and colonising the Pacific. From the sub-fossil record (small bones still remaining) ornithologists know that no fewer than 2,000 species of birds became extinct in Pacific Islands following the arrival of humans. And these were stone age folk.

 

I believe a similar but smaller event occurred with the Carib people colonising Caribbean Islands. Ditto 60,000 years ago following the arrival of humans in Australia, when over 100 species of megafauna died out. In my own country, humans (stone age polynesians) arrived 900 years ago. Within 200 years 36 species of native birds were extinct.

 

My own belief is that we are getting less destructive, not more. Today people actually work to prevent extinctions. The worst areas of the globe in terms of extinctions are not in the developed world, but those in less developed nations, such as Africa, where hunting is wiping out chimps, gorillas and bonobos; or in partly developed nations such as Indonesia where the orangutan is severely at risk.

[walrusman]

This obsession with 'deserving' of yours just isn't making sense to me. I'm curious, what's your whole "theology," and what's it's premise? I really do want to understand where you're coming from.

 

I don't like the word "theology" as it implies some kind of god at it's center and I'm just not into it. But I also shouldn't really use the word 'deserving' either, as that implies some kind of moral code. My original point was, and still is, if it's going extinct then it probably should be. If anything "deserves" to live, then it will be alive. Because apparently the environment is changing so that there is not a place for that living thing anymore. Keeping it around anyway, just seems odd to me.

 

I simply trust nature more than man. Man is a product of nature that sniffs around and tries to figure out the world around him. I don't believe that humans should be messing with the design. If we understand it 100%, that would be different. But we don't. Scientists have experimented with moving species from one part of the world to another only to get results they didn't expect - including negative ones. To me, that's just one example that proves we don't understand enough about this whole thing to be tampering with it.

 

I realize saving a particular species may seem all heart felt and done with good intentions, but I'm not convinced it's the right thing to do. If there's anything I've learned from observing nature, it's that our moral values and natures laws of survival don't mix.

 

But I also don't believe we should be the reason a species finally goes over the edge either. Whether it may seem apparent or not, I agree with what most people are saying in here, about man taking more responsibility for his actions, especially in areas of the world where we really have mastered survival to the point we're bored not having to try to survive so much, and therefore plunder the resources.

 

But man is a part of nature too. Perhaps if humans are changing the environment and species are going extinct, then maybe they should. Other animals cause extinction too, albeit a fraction of what we're doing. The resulting lifeforms are those that could adapt to the changes we've caused - they are fit to survive in this new age. I'm not saying I believe that necessarily, because I'm afraid it's too much change too fast. But I have to kick it around and think it all out. This forum is a great place to do that.

[walrusman]

Not so much really. I come from a low income agrilculturally supported family, one that hit hard times and lost their land and the means by which we supported ourselves for well over two centuries, or from the angle of my native family line, who had even harder times trying to survive off of meager sheep herds in the deserts of the Navajo Nation region. I understand what it's like. But I don't think that a hard life gives someone a free pass to do what they please and by any means necessary, especially if they aren't going to be responsible about it.

 

If you live in America and you're typing on a computer, then you're spoiled and rich. I'm not talking about America's idea of poor, I mean actually poor and living rather primitively. I don't know many poor Americans hunting for their food...just hunting for their food stamps.

 

It's silly to think that some starving african tribe should worry about the fate of their prey. That's not in the design for humans that have NOT mastered survival and are NOT bored not having to try to survive.

 

 

 

 

Oh believe me, I know a true environmentalist's goal is to maintain the entire ecosystem - maintain it right out of existence. Man still doesn't know how leave things alone that he doesn't FULLY understand...yes a very ignorant public.

 

I'm curious as to what the hell you're trying to say right here.

 

I'm being sarcastic and saying that environmentalists can't wait to start tampering with the ecosystem - as if they're qualified to do so.

[Steph]

Basically I see it as a question of our responsibility in the matter based on extinctions caused by our own rather ravenous exploitation of resources we don't really need to exploit' date=' vs the more natural extinction of one species being outdone by another in the very arms race that shapes life on earth, just trying to survive.

[/quote']

 

not at all... an deleterious infection is the exact same thing. Using too many resources to support growth. Sometimes, a lot of those resources are wasted. This is no different than human expansion. This is solely from a human point of view. Think, you said that if an animal were to go extinct by natural means, we should let go. what if we'd find a planet with human-like beings doing what we are doing?

 

I think people should understand that what we are doing right now IS natural. I'm not saying it is a good thing. but it's natural.

If you define that it is natural, you have to come to the conclusion that extinctions are bad, no matter what the cause and they, in the short term, remove diversity.

[AzurePhoenix]

You are falling into the 'noble savage' trap. There is nothing special about people being primitive in their technology. They still cause extinctions.

Trust me when I tell you that this does not escape my notice, I'm no fool. I was addressing scale, and fully understand that circumstances that lead to the fact that all human acitivity will pose a risk to something or other, just as any other succesful species will pose a risk to others. But I just don't feel that attacking these particular people is the right course. There are larger, more frivolous fish to fry before such things can be properly addressed.

 

The worst areas of the globe in terms of extinctions are not in the developed world, but those in less developed nations, such as Africa, where hunting is wiping out chimps, gorillas and bonobos; or in partly developed nations such as Indonesia where the orangutan is severely at risk.

I agree, however, I am more concerned with the threats that go beyond individual species, the large scale habitat destruction that results largely from agrilcultural expansion, such as that in Madagascar, central and south america, and southern asia.

 

If you live in America and you're typing on a computer, then you're spoiled and rich. I'm not talking about America's idea of poor, I mean actually poor and living rather primitively.

While i'm very fortunate that my family has made it to where we stand today, it's silly to think that someone doesn't know hardship simply because of where they are now. And yes, I'm especially fortunate to have been born at the very tail-end of that hardship, so what I do know of it is mostly second-hand. But there were and are times when people, yes even americans, might as well be living in a third world country, where everything they have to eat has to be homegrown in a barely fertile plot of land, hunted, or comes from the rare dead horse or donkey whose meat they don't dare let go to waste. I know I'll never be able to look at it the same way, I don't have that personal viewpoint, and I really am sorry if the way I worded anything might have implied that I've suffered myself, but it does not mean I'm ignorant to the harsh reality.

 

not at all... an deleterious infection is the exact same thing. Using too many resources to support growth. Sometimes, a lot of those resources are wasted. This is no different than human expansion. This is solely from a human point of view. Think, you said that if an animal were to go extinct by natural means, we should let go. what if we'd find a planet with human-like beings doing what we are doing?

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with comparing an aware being able to understand and choose it's actions with a bundle of coded proteins.

 

I think people should understand that what we are doing right now IS natural. I'm not saying it is a good thing. but it's natural.

And I think we have the capability and the potential for responsibility to do better. I don't like huamnity, I know i"ve made that clear many times over. I don't think we're "worth" more than any other organism on anything beyond a strictly personal concern for our own kind, but I recognize that we can recognize and make better choices than what we have. I just don't think it's right to go on actign the way we do, no matter whether it's "natural" or not. Frankly, i think we put too much weight in this abstract concept of "natural" as it is, falling back on it as an excuse for bad behavior.

 

If you define that it is natural, you have to come to the conclusion that extinctions are bad, no matter what the cause and they, in the short term, remove diversity.

Unfortunate, yes. Bad? no. It's a hard fact of life on earth. Things evolve, some things do well, some things do better than others. Things go extinct and end up making room for new things. But what we do is extremely beyond the bounds of what's necessary to do well, even to live comfortably. And that is what I'm against.

[silkworm]

I find it interesting that everybody wants to save cute fluffy animals about to go extinct' date=' but I don't see anybody rescuing the endangered insect species going extinct almost daily.

 

Also, we don't drive species extinct because of sport / fun killing. That's silly. Again, we might drive the nail in the coffin because of it, but if a particular animal's numbers are so low that the relatively small number of inbred murderous hillbilly's can kill them into extinction, then they were on the way out anyway.

 

I will also add, that ethical hunting has actually increased the numbers of game animals. In Oklahoma, about a decade ago, you could only shoot one Buck and one doe. Now, I think it's 3 bucks and 5 does, or something crazy like that. Because they've done such a good job at managing the wildlife, they've increased their numbers almost too much. They are even allowing crossbow hunting during bow season, trying to get the population down. This is completely paid for by hunters. Everytime you buy a tag, a license..etc - that money goes to fund the wildlife management.

 

Ethical hunters are usually lovers of wildlife and outdoors.[/quote']

 

Genius of no equal,

 

1. Hunting works there because it's regulated and based on the advice of biologists. It's a proactive approach to population dynamics, not every random idiot shooting everything.

 

Ethical people who want to talk about something, generally love knowledge and honest exchange, not logic and science free equivocation.

 

2. Tell your hillbillies with guns story to the Buffalo, and then tell it again to a bonobo, make it a captive one because a captive one will probably understand you (I'm not saying that captive ones are smarter, they've just had more of a chance to learn English than those in the wild).

 

3. The initial idiotic and unqualified statement of this post shows exactly where you're coming from. Just because you haven't looked doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are many efforts to save different endangered insect species, plants, and animals no one could consider cute. Let me help you find information on a few campaigns. Go to http://www.google.com and type in something like "endangered species," "save endangered species," "save endangered species campain," "save endangered species campaign insect," "save endangered species campaign plant." Do you get it? There is information out there, and simply because you are ignorant of it, doesn't mean it does not exist.

[silkworm]

I agree that we shouldn't extinct species, but i'm against putting animals over people like some fanatics do. I also believe extincting species give room to new species.

 

Your last sentence doesn't make any sense, especially when you consider the absence of a species can seriously disrupt an entire ecosystem.

 

Take the honey bee for example, which are threatened in the wild in some areas (due to mites, man-made "killer" bee invasion, etc.) but are still present to work primarily through the efforts of apiculturists (beekeepers).

 

If it wasn't for the honey bee, the effect on agriculture would be devistating, not only to us, but all animals and plants because bees are at the forefront of pollination. True, there are other insects, animals, methods that things get pollinated, but nothing compares to the good ol' honeybee.

 

Without them less food, less reproduction, of EVERYTHING because the base of the food chain wouldn't be there in force.

 

And an important point needs to be made too. When a species is gone, it's gone. When the honey bee's gone, we're in deep trouble.

 

I guarantee we could kill all of them though if we tried.