5 ms·

It needs to be noted that the Sumatran rhino has been on the decline for thousands of years now: https://news.mongabay.com/2017/12/dna-analysis-shows-sumatran-

It needs to be noted that the Sumatran rhino has been on the decline for thousands of years now: https://news.mongabay.com/2017/12/dna-analysis-shows-sumatran-rhinos-peaked-in-ice-age-never-recovered/ https://news.mongabay.com/2017/12/dna-analysis-shows-sumatra... While humans have no doubt accelerated their demise, the overall problem stems from "rising sea levels that submerged the land bridges connecting the islands of Borneo, Java, and Sumatra to the Malay Peninsula and mainland Asia, subsequently fragmenting suitable habitats for the rhino." Finally, Sumatran rhino populations are so small, remote, and fragmented that poaching is less of a concern for this species than issues like land use.

lisper 7y ago
Important context from that article: Payne also noted that the findings reinforced the importance of supporting efforts to prevent the species from going extinct. “Animal species do come and go over periods that can be most conveniently measured in units of tens of thousands of years,” he said, but added, “To say that we should just let some species go extinct because it is ‘natural’ is nonsense.”
- corndoge 7y ago
  Why is it nonsense? It is natural.
  - lisper 7y ago
    It is nonsense that we should accept any negative outcomes simply because they are natural. If we accepted this form of argument, we'd still have people dying from smallpox and polio, both of which are "natural". The whole point of technological civilization is to be the masters of our own fates and not to meekly accept whatever happens to be "natural".
    - briefcomment 7y ago
      Ok, but why do we need to do anything to keep certain animal species around? It might be nice to have Sumatran rhinos around so you could see something new and cool, but there are hundreds of thousands of cool species to see. I would guess that the Sumatran rhino does not hold a crucial position in any ecosystem. It's certainly not the same to us as having people die out because of smallpox etc. People mean much more to us than animals. If we have the money, the means, and the time to preserve the Sumatran rhino, then let's save it. If we have better things to do, let's do that instead.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - lisper 7y ago
        > Ok, but why do we need to do anything to keep certain animal species around? For the same reason the Internet Archive is worth keeping: Sumatran Rhinos (and all other species) contain irreplaceable information accumulated over millions of years of evolution. You never know when or how some of that information might turn out to be useful. But once the last backup is gone, it's gone forever.
        briefcomment 7y ago
        Unlikely, but possible, so fair. Again though, not really comparable (for us) to human loss. And I'm fine sacrificing "you never know" if we end up using that time and effort for something more pressing, as alluded to by BurningFrog below.
      - BurningFrog 7y ago
        "You never know" is an argument usually applied selectively. It has the advantage that it is always true. Yeah, we don't know what terrible unforeseen consequence letting this species go will have. But we don't know what good consequence it might have either.
        lisper 7y ago
        We can make some pretty good guesses. We make this kind of judgement call about species all the time. Like it or not, we pick the winners and losers in this world. That's why there are lots of dogs, cows, and chickens, and no smallpox viruses (at least not in the wild). It's because we've decided that dogs, cows and chickens deserve to live because they make our lives better, and smallpox viruses don't deserve to live because they make our lives worse. It seems to me that a Sumatran Rhino is a lot more like a dog or a cow or a chicken than it is like a smallpox virus. It's true that we can't eat them or keep them as pets, but just the ability to go see one in the wild has value IMHO.
    - refurb 7y ago
      But if you’re trying to limit the impact of humans, by saving a species that would naturally go extinct, you’re interfering with nature.
      - csallen 7y ago
        Limiting the impact of humans is a means, not an end.
        refurb 7y ago
        So what’s the end goal? Save every possible species despite them not being viable?
        csallen 7y ago
        Sure something like that, although I'd say it's to save every species that's practical to save rather than merely possible. Whether or not they're "viable" seems irrelevant.
        refurb 7y ago
        Why? What’s the rationale? If more species is best, should we bread or genetically engineer new ones? Is that “better”?
        csallen 7y ago
        I don't think it's purely rational. It's probably the case that loss aversion[0] or some combination of psychological phenomena play a huge role. But I suppose the rational component is: If it's practical to save a species, and that species may provide some useful knowledge or inspiration in the future, why not save it? > If more species is best, should we bread or genetically engineer new ones? Is that “better”? I get what you're saying, but you have to draw the line somewhere. For example, if more money is better, why not work 3 jobs? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion
    - BurningFrog 7y ago
      I don't have a problem with valuing human life over pretty much anything, while being neutral about which animals live or die. I suppose I agree that just calling something "natural" isn't a great argument on its own. My main disagreement here is the arbitrary decision that this is a "negative outcome".
      - lisper 7y ago
        > I don't have a problem with valuing human life over pretty much anything OK, but then you still have to decide whether you value quantity over quality. Is it better to have N people living comfortable fulfilled lives, or 10N people living in poverty and misery? Even if you decide to cast your lot with quantity over quality, you have to decide whether the quantity you're going to value is head-count of person-years: is it better to have N people with a life expectancy of 100 years, or 10N people with a life expectancy of 20 years?
        BurningFrog 7y ago
        Well, I have a hard time seeing how to ethically influence any of those things. I assume we're not talking about killing 90% of the population if it happens to be 10N... So I'll happily just defer to accepting any people who happen to exist.
        lisper 7y ago
        OK, but then you still have the problem of how to balance the needs of the people who already exist. For example, I really like animals. I place a very high value on the possibility that I might some day see a Sumatran rhino in the wild. If Sumatran rhinos go extinct then I, a human who already exists, will be very sad and have a lower quality of life. How do you balance that against the needs and desires of others who don't value Sumatran rhinos as much as I do?
  - refurb 7y ago
    One also has the question the impact. Sure it’s a separate species of rhino. But it’s a separate species because humans designated it as such. Sometimes the difference between species is pretty marginal and one might wonder what the impact is of losing it.
    - hnmullany 7y ago
      The definition of a species is the interbreeding barrier. Animals who cannot produce fertile offspring are different species.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - webninja 7y ago
    By that flawed logic we should let all diseases kill everything and everyone because death by disease is natural.
    - corndoge 7y ago
      Not at all. I think humanity engineering things for its own benefit, including biology, is good. But evolution as a force of nature has been proceeding uninterrupted for millions of years and many species have gone extinct when their niches disappear, or their adaptations become less advantageous. Humanity has evolved to be able to create technology beneficial for us. I don't necessarily see how it immediately follows that using that technology to preserve other species is beneficial.
      - fzeroracer 7y ago
        That niche specie that we let go extinct because of 'naturality' could have evolution advantages over humans that would prove very useful in biological research. They could be especially hardened against cancer for example, but end up being wiped out by disease and famine rather than old age. Not to mention humanity has a global effect on species population, it would be hubris to assume a species going extinct nowadays is separate from that, even if they have been in a steady decline for quite some time.
redis_mlc 7y ago
> the islands of Borneo, Java, and Sumatra Those are some of the largest islands on earth. The problen for rhinos in the case of Java is that it's 100% farmed, not submerged land bridges.

lisper 7y ago

Important context from that article: Payne also noted that the findings reinforced the importance of supporting efforts to prevent the species from going extinct. “Animal species do come and go over periods that can be most conveniently measured in units of tens of thousands of years,” he said, but added, “To say that we should just let some species go extinct because it is ‘natural’ is nonsense.”

corndoge 7y ago
Why is it nonsense? It is natural.
- lisper 7y ago
  It is nonsense that we should accept any negative outcomes simply because they are natural. If we accepted this form of argument, we'd still have people dying from smallpox and polio, both of which are "natural". The whole point of technological civilization is to be the masters of our own fates and not to meekly accept whatever happens to be "natural".
  - briefcomment 7y ago
    Ok, but why do we need to do anything to keep certain animal species around? It might be nice to have Sumatran rhinos around so you could see something new and cool, but there are hundreds of thousands of cool species to see. I would guess that the Sumatran rhino does not hold a crucial position in any ecosystem. It's certainly not the same to us as having people die out because of smallpox etc. People mean much more to us than animals. If we have the money, the means, and the time to preserve the Sumatran rhino, then let's save it. If we have better things to do, let's do that instead.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - lisper 7y ago
      > Ok, but why do we need to do anything to keep certain animal species around? For the same reason the Internet Archive is worth keeping: Sumatran Rhinos (and all other species) contain irreplaceable information accumulated over millions of years of evolution. You never know when or how some of that information might turn out to be useful. But once the last backup is gone, it's gone forever.
      - briefcomment 7y ago
        Unlikely, but possible, so fair. Again though, not really comparable (for us) to human loss. And I'm fine sacrificing "you never know" if we end up using that time and effort for something more pressing, as alluded to by BurningFrog below.
    - BurningFrog 7y ago
      "You never know" is an argument usually applied selectively. It has the advantage that it is always true. Yeah, we don't know what terrible unforeseen consequence letting this species go will have. But we don't know what good consequence it might have either.
      - lisper 7y ago
        We can make some pretty good guesses. We make this kind of judgement call about species all the time. Like it or not, we pick the winners and losers in this world. That's why there are lots of dogs, cows, and chickens, and no smallpox viruses (at least not in the wild). It's because we've decided that dogs, cows and chickens deserve to live because they make our lives better, and smallpox viruses don't deserve to live because they make our lives worse. It seems to me that a Sumatran Rhino is a lot more like a dog or a cow or a chicken than it is like a smallpox virus. It's true that we can't eat them or keep them as pets, but just the ability to go see one in the wild has value IMHO.
  - refurb 7y ago
    But if you’re trying to limit the impact of humans, by saving a species that would naturally go extinct, you’re interfering with nature.
    - csallen 7y ago
      Limiting the impact of humans is a means, not an end.
      - refurb 7y ago
        So what’s the end goal? Save every possible species despite them not being viable?
        csallen 7y ago
        Sure something like that, although I'd say it's to save every species that's practical to save rather than merely possible. Whether or not they're "viable" seems irrelevant.
        refurb 7y ago
        Why? What’s the rationale? If more species is best, should we bread or genetically engineer new ones? Is that “better”?
        csallen 7y ago
        I don't think it's purely rational. It's probably the case that loss aversion[0] or some combination of psychological phenomena play a huge role. But I suppose the rational component is: If it's practical to save a species, and that species may provide some useful knowledge or inspiration in the future, why not save it? > If more species is best, should we bread or genetically engineer new ones? Is that “better”? I get what you're saying, but you have to draw the line somewhere. For example, if more money is better, why not work 3 jobs? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    I don't have a problem with valuing human life over pretty much anything, while being neutral about which animals live or die. I suppose I agree that just calling something "natural" isn't a great argument on its own. My main disagreement here is the arbitrary decision that this is a "negative outcome".
    - lisper 7y ago
      > I don't have a problem with valuing human life over pretty much anything OK, but then you still have to decide whether you value quantity over quality. Is it better to have N people living comfortable fulfilled lives, or 10N people living in poverty and misery? Even if you decide to cast your lot with quantity over quality, you have to decide whether the quantity you're going to value is head-count of person-years: is it better to have N people with a life expectancy of 100 years, or 10N people with a life expectancy of 20 years?
      - BurningFrog 7y ago
        Well, I have a hard time seeing how to ethically influence any of those things. I assume we're not talking about killing 90% of the population if it happens to be 10N... So I'll happily just defer to accepting any people who happen to exist.
        lisper 7y ago
        OK, but then you still have the problem of how to balance the needs of the people who already exist. For example, I really like animals. I place a very high value on the possibility that I might some day see a Sumatran rhino in the wild. If Sumatran rhinos go extinct then I, a human who already exists, will be very sad and have a lower quality of life. How do you balance that against the needs and desires of others who don't value Sumatran rhinos as much as I do?
- refurb 7y ago
  One also has the question the impact. Sure it’s a separate species of rhino. But it’s a separate species because humans designated it as such. Sometimes the difference between species is pretty marginal and one might wonder what the impact is of losing it.
  - hnmullany 7y ago
    The definition of a species is the interbreeding barrier. Animals who cannot produce fertile offspring are different species.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- webninja 7y ago
  By that flawed logic we should let all diseases kill everything and everyone because death by disease is natural.
  - corndoge 7y ago
    Not at all. I think humanity engineering things for its own benefit, including biology, is good. But evolution as a force of nature has been proceeding uninterrupted for millions of years and many species have gone extinct when their niches disappear, or their adaptations become less advantageous. Humanity has evolved to be able to create technology beneficial for us. I don't necessarily see how it immediately follows that using that technology to preserve other species is beneficial.
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      That niche specie that we let go extinct because of 'naturality' could have evolution advantages over humans that would prove very useful in biological research. They could be especially hardened against cancer for example, but end up being wiped out by disease and famine rather than old age. Not to mention humanity has a global effect on species population, it would be hubris to assume a species going extinct nowadays is separate from that, even if they have been in a steady decline for quite some time.

redis_mlc 7y ago

> the islands of Borneo, Java, and Sumatra Those are some of the largest islands on earth. The problen for rhinos in the case of Java is that it's 100% farmed, not submerged land bridges.