21 ms·

Sort of, until you realize that 99% of all creatures that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. [1] It's not unnatural for animals to leave the planet and nev

by ProAm 12y ago

Sort of, until you realize that 99% of all creatures that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. [1] It's not unnatural for animals to leave the planet and never return, but it's is still sad. [1] http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org/overview.html http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org/overview.html

rcthompson 12y ago
But it is unnatural for species to go extinct because humans shot them all.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Its more 'natural' if a volcano erupts and kills them all? Or a flood? Or an asteroid? Its not 'normal', I admit that. Extinction by definition can't be a normal event. But natural? I guess if everything man-made is defined as 'unnatural' then sure.
  - bduerst 12y ago
    Really it depends on the context and what humans can control. Could we stop a volcanic eruption? Probably not. A meteor strike? Maybe. Could we stop the poaching of near extinct species for some unproven alternative medicine? Hopefully.
    - dm2 12y ago
      It's amazing that we can throw nuclear weapons at both of those huge objects (volcano and meteor) and there is actually a chance that we can prevent them from destroying the world. In other news, terrorists and other enemies of the US are trying to make the Yellowstone volcano explode, that's scary. Can we not "cool" the magma under Yellowstone? Maybe even use that heat? Are geothermal plants too expensive?
- Nadya 12y ago
  But it's natural of wolves hunt their prey to extinction and as a result, starve themselves into extinction? Animals killing animals is still "natural" predator:prey survival. Humans killing an entire species by shooting them isn't any less natural than wolves hunting their primary food source to extinction. The difference is humans don't go extinct when we kill a species - because we aren't dependent on them as a primary source of survival. Most animals are foragers (eg. squirrels) or hunters (eg. lions) and some can be both (eg. bears) but very, very few animals are creators of their own food. I cannot think of any other animal that aids another species in breeding for the sole purpose of consumption for survival. Although I can think of a few bacterium examples or even symbiotic relationships. It's not quite the same level I'm arguing for here.
  - dec0dedab0de 12y ago
    I cannot think of any other animal that aids another species in breeding for the sole purpose of consumption for survival. Not quite the same thing you're talking about, but some ants farm aphids to eat something they produce. I would give a citation, but there are a ton if you search, and I don't know if any one is notably better.
    - Nadya 12y ago
      >Some farming ant species gather and store the aphid eggs in their nests over the winter. In the spring, the ants carry the newly hatched aphids back to the plants. I'd say that counts. The others don't seem to be on the "same level" as to what I'm thinking - though the distinction is possibly even arbitrary. Thanks for the info!
    - bduerst 12y ago
      Right, but do the ants practice animal husbandry? Do predatory fish eat the lazy skunk shrimp to ween the herd? I think the point they were trying to make is that there is no other sapient symbiotic relationships, but there are few sapient species so it's kind of moot.
      - Nadya 12y ago
- ProAm 11y ago
  Humans are an invasive aggressive species, I don't think it's unnatural at all for that to occur.
bduerst 12y ago
According to WWF, 52% of the Earth's biodiversity has been lost since 1970. Mass extinction events from millions of years ago are not really relevant to discussion about protecting existing endangered species from human exploitation.
enupten 12y ago
Isn't that a bit too agnostic (and fatalistic too) ? I mean it is us who are causing the downfall afterall. I agree that on the large scale we're no less "natural" or "conscious", but surely we can be better than a Meteor or a Supervolcano.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  That's very true. But consider: millions of creatures went extinct before our time. What we see today is just those that happened to be extant as we came to civilization. Are they more important than all those that came before? Are they significant at all? Some say yes; others think perhaps an albino tiger isn't all that pertinent, when we can (soon) create a pink polka-dot tiger that fetches your slippers.
  - enupten 12y ago
    That's like saying, I know my life doesn't mean anything to the Universe, and then consequently jumping out the window.

by ProAm 12y ago

rcthompson 12y ago

But it is unnatural for species to go extinct because humans shot them all.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Its more 'natural' if a volcano erupts and kills them all? Or a flood? Or an asteroid? Its not 'normal', I admit that. Extinction by definition can't be a normal event. But natural? I guess if everything man-made is defined as 'unnatural' then sure.
- bduerst 12y ago
  Really it depends on the context and what humans can control. Could we stop a volcanic eruption? Probably not. A meteor strike? Maybe. Could we stop the poaching of near extinct species for some unproven alternative medicine? Hopefully.
  - dm2 12y ago
    It's amazing that we can throw nuclear weapons at both of those huge objects (volcano and meteor) and there is actually a chance that we can prevent them from destroying the world. In other news, terrorists and other enemies of the US are trying to make the Yellowstone volcano explode, that's scary. Can we not "cool" the magma under Yellowstone? Maybe even use that heat? Are geothermal plants too expensive?
Nadya 12y ago
But it's natural of wolves hunt their prey to extinction and as a result, starve themselves into extinction? Animals killing animals is still "natural" predator:prey survival. Humans killing an entire species by shooting them isn't any less natural than wolves hunting their primary food source to extinction. The difference is humans don't go extinct when we kill a species - because we aren't dependent on them as a primary source of survival. Most animals are foragers (eg. squirrels) or hunters (eg. lions) and some can be both (eg. bears) but very, very few animals are creators of their own food. I cannot think of any other animal that aids another species in breeding for the sole purpose of consumption for survival. Although I can think of a few bacterium examples or even symbiotic relationships. It's not quite the same level I'm arguing for here.
- dec0dedab0de 12y ago
  I cannot think of any other animal that aids another species in breeding for the sole purpose of consumption for survival. Not quite the same thing you're talking about, but some ants farm aphids to eat something they produce. I would give a citation, but there are a ton if you search, and I don't know if any one is notably better.
  - Nadya 12y ago
    >Some farming ant species gather and store the aphid eggs in their nests over the winter. In the spring, the ants carry the newly hatched aphids back to the plants. I'd say that counts. The others don't seem to be on the "same level" as to what I'm thinking - though the distinction is possibly even arbitrary. Thanks for the info!
  - bduerst 12y ago
    Right, but do the ants practice animal husbandry? Do predatory fish eat the lazy skunk shrimp to ween the herd? I think the point they were trying to make is that there is no other sapient symbiotic relationships, but there are few sapient species so it's kind of moot.
    - Nadya 12y ago
ProAm 11y ago
Humans are an invasive aggressive species, I don't think it's unnatural at all for that to occur.

bduerst 12y ago

According to WWF, 52% of the Earth's biodiversity has been lost since 1970. Mass extinction events from millions of years ago are not really relevant to discussion about protecting existing endangered species from human exploitation.

enupten 12y ago

Isn't that a bit too agnostic (and fatalistic too) ? I mean it is us who are causing the downfall afterall. I agree that on the large scale we're no less "natural" or "conscious", but surely we can be better than a Meteor or a Supervolcano.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
That's very true. But consider: millions of creatures went extinct before our time. What we see today is just those that happened to be extant as we came to civilization. Are they more important than all those that came before? Are they significant at all? Some say yes; others think perhaps an albino tiger isn't all that pertinent, when we can (soon) create a pink polka-dot tiger that fetches your slippers.
- enupten 12y ago
  That's like saying, I know my life doesn't mean anything to the Universe, and then consequently jumping out the window.