You concede that some species should go extinct to make “the whole” stronger, but you contend that this is not one of them.
I believe that claim entitles me to ask on what basis you draw that distinction.
Actually, you damage your own point right here. If the older of the two current theories of cetacean origins is true, the poor Mesonyx was not able to compete against creodonts and miacids as a land carnivore, and instead took to an amphibious and then aquatic hunting life, losing its hindlimbs and adapting its forelimbs to flippers in the process, growing to even larger size, and established a quite secure existence as major marine and river carnivores and marine filter-feeders. Until humans discovered they produced burnable oil, and began harvesting them. So the poor Mesonyx did what he needed to do to survive, and evolved sequentially into an archaeocete, an odontocete, and then specialized as a river dolphin.
There is a quantitative difference between natural catastrophe, losing in an evolutionary competition, and being hunted to death or simply polluted out of your econiche because it would not be cost-effective for a business to avoid shitting on its neighbors’ property, or into the common waters.
No, I’m being realistic. When the last dolphin died, nothing happened that affected me. And it didn’t affect you, either.
Again, so what? How does that affect me? A species went extinct. My life goes on the same as before.
If you want to start talking about how environmental degradation caused by man affects me, then go ahead. But one species dying does not affect me. Anyone who gets upset over this is a little overly-emotional, to be polite.
From this sentence, I suspect you and I may have somewhat differing ideas of just how much human activity has changed the world climate in the past two hundred years.
But the anaerobic bacteria that pumped out hydrogen sulfide gas at the end of the Permian quite possibly changed the levels of hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere over just a few hundred years - just to pick one possible example.
Never said they were. But they are part of the natural environment, and their impact, no pun intended, on the environment shapes evolution.
No, there’s not. Being hunted to death IS losing in an evolutionary competition. So is dying by natural catastrophe. And so is being polluted out of your econiche.
I said I was not convinced that it was one of them. I don’t think you can show me how it had less right to survive than we humans do. Especially considering how self destructive and heedless we are to our own long term survival. In effect, we “shit” in our own food and water. As I said earlier, we know better, but don’t do better. We are the ill-fated grasshopper from the fable.
Bricker, we as humans have the ability to hunt and pollute pretty much any large animal species into extinction. It’s not necessarily something I would choose to remain archly detached from, as you seem to be.
It is feasible, Renob, to be saddened by the loss of a particularly remarkable species due to anthropogenic effect, even if it doesn’t directly affect you in any tangible way.
Not climate change in this case - so we can avoid that row - but pollution caused by humans, inadvertant shipping injuries caused by humans, and deliberate injury caused by human fishermen. For more details, read Last Chance to See.
It is also illustrative of an acceleration in extinction rates due to the influence of humanity.
May I suggest those who are unmoved by this start a debate about the impact, or lack thereof, of the latest extinction, rather than polluting one that is merely mourning it.
Oh, for God’s sake! People are upset about this because they like dolphins, not because their system of internal logic is inherently nonsensical.
We are sentient beings and beyond that, we are capable of reason, logic, understanding, and compassion. We are capable of seeing the ecosystem as a whole and, should we so choose, treating it with due respect in a perfectly reasonable attempt to maintain its balance so that we may coexist with it. We have the capability to recognize when a species is approaching extinction levels and take necessary steps to prevent it and even repopulate it and protect it from that fate in the future. Being at the top of the food chain, we have the ability – I daresay the responsibility – to take care that we don’t screw up the environment in which we live. The environment, you’ll note, that gives us the very life we use to destroy it. Therein lies the fundamental difference between extinction by natural causes and extinction by man-made causes. The former is unavoidable and, in some cases, inevitable. The latter is our own doing and can – and should by any means necessary – be prevented. We know better. We ought to do better.
The extinction of one species doesn’t affect you? Bullshit. That’s the same sort of logic that causes people to abstain from voting in elections because they believe their one puny vote doesn’t make a difference. So what? One species disappears from the world. What difference does it make? Who does it really effect? But then what about two species? Three? Five? A hundred? A thousand? Eventually, somewhere down the line, enough species will disappear that you will be personally effected. The extinction of one may be a small part of it, but it’s still a part.
“Less right” to survive is not a meaningful statement in this discussion, since it is unclear what factors might apply in calculating a species’ “right” to survive.
Cute furry animals have more right to survive than slimy gastropods, though, I know that one for sure.
But apart from that obvious truth of nature, we really can’t calculate a species’ “right” to survive except by the most basic of evidence: the fact of its survival. A species that survives HAS the “right” to survive, and a species that does not survive does not have the “right” to survive. Any other criteria for “right” to survive is ultimately unsupportable.
Yes, we do. Are we the first species that ever hunted another species into extinction?
Well, if that’s all it were, I would certainly not be here in this thread. People are defending their reaction on many other grounds, however.
Seconded! Leave us be, let us have peace to mourn in this thread. Go start a GD thread to debate it please.
No, but we’re the first species that has the sentience not to. The fact that we remain unable to restrain ourselves is disappointing in the least.
Excellent suggestion and it might make a good debate. I’ve never understood the need to post a “so what” to a topic that some people obviously care about.
Please see Humans have more right to live than baiji dolphins in GD.
Oh, for crying out loud, Bricker.
Why worry about the river dolphin? Because river dolphins are amazing creatures and it’s nice to live on a planet with river dolphins. It sucks that they’re going to die, because now we won’t have any more.
Would I want to live in a world that had trilobites? Hell yes. I want the thylacine back, I want the dodo back, I want the moa back, I want the elephant bird back, I want the Archeolemur back, I want Thylacosmilus back, I wish I could see and appreciate every extinct species that ever lived, because animals are interesting to me, and it sucks that we’ll never know what a Sivatherium was like, or a woolly mammoth.
Of course there’s no “right” for a species to exist. Yeah, the universe doesn’t care. The universe doesn’t care if the Mona Lisa exists. It’s just a scrap of canvas. The universe doesn’t care if you exist, or if I exist. The universe doesn’t care if a baby gets run over by a truck. Does that mean you watch unmoved when the baby is sitting in the street, or do you run over and take the baby out of the street? Why would you do such a thing?
Because you, as a human being, value human life. You, as a human being, also value things that aren’t human…art, music, a good car, a chocolate bar, who knows. Maybe you don’t care for everything everyone else does, and can’t understand why someone would value the Mona Lisa, and you wouldn’t shed a tear if it were destroyed. But someone with human empathy would understand that the rest of us DO value it, and so to refuse to take steps to save it…or that baby in the street…or a freaking river dolphin…is an asshole move.
It has nothing to do with the universe, or evolution, it’s about humanity. What do WE want for ourselves? And even if some of use can’t see the value in an animal species, the trouble is that extinction is forever, as the cliche goes. We can’t change our minds later, now that we wish we had some dodos around. It’s a one-way ratchet…on the scale of human history. Sure, 30 million years from now there will be new species of flightless birds on uninhabited islands. But that doesn’t do any good to us today, or tomorrow, or for the next couple thousand years.
Thank you Bricker. I will endeavor to formulate and order my thoughts, though I admit, right now my feelings are clouding my logical side.
Except the OP in GD isn’t the same as this one. Where did anyone post that dolphins were more important than people?
I posted that dolphins had as much “right” to survive as humans did, and perhaps humans had less “right” to survive than the dolphins due to our self destructive inclinations. They are taking it rather more literally (in a way) than I meant in the new topic.