6 ms·

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

JoeAltmaier 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y ago
      Animals are far smarter than humans give them credit for [1]. That isn't to say any species comes close to the broad scope of human intellect - but to say that there are not purposeful interactions of survival among other species would be wrong. That is why I said I did not know of one offhand, rather than say they do not exist. Although I could not name one on a level higher than bacteria, I knew it was likely to exist. Symbiotic relationships are not quite the same - again with my definition arguably being arbitrary. I consider a symbiotic relationship to be when two animals happen to benefit from each other due to their actions and it is not one species using another. That is the case for most symbiotic relationships I can think of. For example, pilot fish and sharks. Sharks happen to host bacteria that the pilot fish eat. Eating the bacteria is obviously beneficial for the pilot fish and happens to benefit the shark as well. It's not that the pilot fish specifically chose sharks to eat bacteria from. This appears to be happenstance. Some of the examples of ants and aphids seems to be happenstance. The ants defend an aphid from another creature that eats/destroys the aphids so that the ants can eat it. That's fighting to protect their food source - something I consider "necessary for survival" and not "beneficial for survival". The case I cited where the ants will harvest the aphid eggs, store them safely for the winter, then bring them back to plants to hatch is along the lines of "beneficial for survival". It's an intentional use of aphids as a food source with what appears to be a methodology of breeding and sustaining their honeydew food source. It's a "step above" a symbiotic relationship in my eyes. [2] [1] http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2814%2901557-7 http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2814... [2] Again, I recognize that where I'm drawing my line might be arbitrary to some people. I hope I explained how I see some of the scenarios as different to one another in a way that other people can understand where I stand. If not, please ask questions.
ProAm 11y ago
Humans are an invasive aggressive species, I don't think it's unnatural at all for that to occur.

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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y ago
    Animals are far smarter than humans give them credit for [1]. That isn't to say any species comes close to the broad scope of human intellect - but to say that there are not purposeful interactions of survival among other species would be wrong. That is why I said I did not know of one offhand, rather than say they do not exist. Although I could not name one on a level higher than bacteria, I knew it was likely to exist. Symbiotic relationships are not quite the same - again with my definition arguably being arbitrary. I consider a symbiotic relationship to be when two animals happen to benefit from each other due to their actions and it is not one species using another. That is the case for most symbiotic relationships I can think of. For example, pilot fish and sharks. Sharks happen to host bacteria that the pilot fish eat. Eating the bacteria is obviously beneficial for the pilot fish and happens to benefit the shark as well. It's not that the pilot fish specifically chose sharks to eat bacteria from. This appears to be happenstance. Some of the examples of ants and aphids seems to be happenstance. The ants defend an aphid from another creature that eats/destroys the aphids so that the ants can eat it. That's fighting to protect their food source - something I consider "necessary for survival" and not "beneficial for survival". The case I cited where the ants will harvest the aphid eggs, store them safely for the winter, then bring them back to plants to hatch is along the lines of "beneficial for survival". It's an intentional use of aphids as a food source with what appears to be a methodology of breeding and sustaining their honeydew food source. It's a "step above" a symbiotic relationship in my eyes. [2] [1] http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2814%2901557-7 http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2814... [2] Again, I recognize that where I'm drawing my line might be arbitrary to some people. I hope I explained how I see some of the scenarios as different to one another in a way that other people can understand where I stand. If not, please ask questions.

ProAm 11y ago

Humans are an invasive aggressive species, I don't think it's unnatural at all for that to occur.