3 ms·

>>But it's natural of wolves hunt their prey to extinction and as a result, starve themselves into extinction? The problem is that we aren't starving ourselves

>>But it's natural of wolves hunt their prey to extinction and as a result, starve themselves into extinction? The problem is that we aren't starving ourselves into extinction as a result of overkilling rhinos. We're simply moving on to the next species and driving them extinct, then moving on to the next, etc. So basically, by the time we are extinct, it may be too late.

Nadya 12y ago
>The problem is that we aren't starving ourselves into extinction as a result of overkilling rhinos. That's my point - and I don't see how it's a problem unless you consider the extinction of the human race a good thing? >We're simply moving on to the next species and driving them extinct, then moving on to the next, etc. So it's as if wolves ran out of moose and deer so began hunting rabbits and small game. They still hadn't figured out how to raise their own food and will eventually run out of food sources. Thankfully, humans have the "food sources" problem sorted out. [1] >So basically, by the time we are extinct, it may be too late. Late for what? Even "without human interaction" - animals still go extinct. It's a natural thing, even a very normal thing. With 99% of species going extinct I would argue it's not normal for a species to not go extinct. Humans are largely against other species going extinct though. I guess there's that tinge of guilt for being the "root cause of the problem". Though to pretend it is somehow unnatural and not how the world works is silly and childish. Predators have caused prey to go extinct for hundreds of thousands of years. [1] Because we grow food and raise animals for consumption. Most species don't do this.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  >>Though to pretend it is somehow unnatural and not how the world works is silly and childish. Predators have caused prey to go extinct for hundreds of thousands of years. Yes, but not at the rate and scale that we are causing species to go extinct. We're essentially the equivalent of a mass-extinction event for most species on the planet. Furthermore, species in nature tend to be in certain states of equilibrium because every predator is prey for something else. Except humans: we're at the top of the food chain and the only threat we face is from ourselves.
  - Nadya 12y ago
    We're more efficient than other animals at the killing of other animals. That does not make it not natural. We, like every other species on Earth, are simply that: A species on Earth. We're just particularly better and more efficient than most animals at Earth for destructive behavior. No other species on Earth can turn an 8 mile plot of land into a barren wasteland devoid of life in a moment with the detonation of a nuclear weapon. >Furthermore, species in nature tend to be in certain states of equilibrium because every predator is prey for something else. This is not entirely true, I'll add a new term for your vocabulary: Apex predator [0] There is a reason it is called a "food chain" and not a "food pyramid". Predators die off because of many reasons. Some are human caused and others aren't. Let's bring a bit of math into this: Lotka-Volterra predator-prey equation [1] I forget the exact term for population dynamics but "food source goes down, predator population dies off, predator population dying off means more food source survives, more food source means fewer predators die from starvation and the cycle continues". It's possible to reach a point of no return if too much of the prey dies off. This happens, I would like to refer to my wolves example from earlier. [0] Have a look at the "extant" section in particular. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apex_predators http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apex_predators [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation
    - enraged_camel 12y ago
      >>We're more efficient than other animals at the killing of other animals. That does not make it not natural. We, like every other species on Earth, are simply that: A species on Earth. I think you're a bit too focused on the literal definition of the word "natural," and that's rather pedantic. Yes, we're a part of nature. That doesn't mean our actions are ordinary, or like that of other animals. On the contrary, we're incredibly efficient at everything we do, and the impact we're having on the planet is unprecedented. There has never been a species in the entire history of Earth like us. And since we're so vastly different, it's incorrect to treat what we're doing as "natural."
      - Nadya 12y ago
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
That's the leap I object to: that somehow losing the rhino's matters one whit to our survival. The popular mythology takes it as a premise. I reject it, as not based on any evidence or reasonable argument. Will my Angus beef dry up because, rhino? No.

Nadya 12y ago

>The problem is that we aren't starving ourselves into extinction as a result of overkilling rhinos. That's my point - and I don't see how it's a problem unless you consider the extinction of the human race a good thing? >We're simply moving on to the next species and driving them extinct, then moving on to the next, etc. So it's as if wolves ran out of moose and deer so began hunting rabbits and small game. They still hadn't figured out how to raise their own food and will eventually run out of food sources. Thankfully, humans have the "food sources" problem sorted out. [1] >So basically, by the time we are extinct, it may be too late. Late for what? Even "without human interaction" - animals still go extinct. It's a natural thing, even a very normal thing. With 99% of species going extinct I would argue it's not normal for a species to not go extinct. Humans are largely against other species going extinct though. I guess there's that tinge of guilt for being the "root cause of the problem". Though to pretend it is somehow unnatural and not how the world works is silly and childish. Predators have caused prey to go extinct for hundreds of thousands of years. [1] Because we grow food and raise animals for consumption. Most species don't do this.

enraged_camel 12y ago
>>Though to pretend it is somehow unnatural and not how the world works is silly and childish. Predators have caused prey to go extinct for hundreds of thousands of years. Yes, but not at the rate and scale that we are causing species to go extinct. We're essentially the equivalent of a mass-extinction event for most species on the planet. Furthermore, species in nature tend to be in certain states of equilibrium because every predator is prey for something else. Except humans: we're at the top of the food chain and the only threat we face is from ourselves.
- Nadya 12y ago
  We're more efficient than other animals at the killing of other animals. That does not make it not natural. We, like every other species on Earth, are simply that: A species on Earth. We're just particularly better and more efficient than most animals at Earth for destructive behavior. No other species on Earth can turn an 8 mile plot of land into a barren wasteland devoid of life in a moment with the detonation of a nuclear weapon. >Furthermore, species in nature tend to be in certain states of equilibrium because every predator is prey for something else. This is not entirely true, I'll add a new term for your vocabulary: Apex predator [0] There is a reason it is called a "food chain" and not a "food pyramid". Predators die off because of many reasons. Some are human caused and others aren't. Let's bring a bit of math into this: Lotka-Volterra predator-prey equation [1] I forget the exact term for population dynamics but "food source goes down, predator population dies off, predator population dying off means more food source survives, more food source means fewer predators die from starvation and the cycle continues". It's possible to reach a point of no return if too much of the prey dies off. This happens, I would like to refer to my wolves example from earlier. [0] Have a look at the "extant" section in particular. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apex_predators http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apex_predators [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation
  - enraged_camel 12y ago
    >>We're more efficient than other animals at the killing of other animals. That does not make it not natural. We, like every other species on Earth, are simply that: A species on Earth. I think you're a bit too focused on the literal definition of the word "natural," and that's rather pedantic. Yes, we're a part of nature. That doesn't mean our actions are ordinary, or like that of other animals. On the contrary, we're incredibly efficient at everything we do, and the impact we're having on the planet is unprecedented. There has never been a species in the entire history of Earth like us. And since we're so vastly different, it's incorrect to treat what we're doing as "natural."
    - Nadya 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

That's the leap I object to: that somehow losing the rhino's matters one whit to our survival. The popular mythology takes it as a premise. I reject it, as not based on any evidence or reasonable argument. Will my Angus beef dry up because, rhino? No.