Extinction is wrong (right??)

Great Debates
1

I’ve got to stay off the Yahoo Boards - don’t know if my blood pressure (or my already shaky image of humanity) can tolerate it … Anyway, I just wanted to see if intelligent people really agree with this particular line of thought…

This happens every time Yahoo’s news posts a story about some other species of animal that humans are driving to extinction (this time it’s various lemurs in Madagascar). One gets used to the sickos who post “Lemur soup” recipes, etc, etc. What I can’t get used to is the number of people who think that human-caused extinctions are perfectly natural, that they merely represent the lates cases of “survival of the fittest”, and that suggesting that human morality should enter into the equation is as ridiculous as asking the comet that iced the dinosaurs to feel remorse.

So, having thrown the floor open - opinions???

2

Like – why do you feel they are wrong?

3

IMHO …

I don’t think there is anything wrong with extinction, just as there isn’t anything wrong with wildfires in the western United States. They are both simple acts of nature as time moves on. Now, if the extinction or wildfire was caused by a careless person or group of people, then sure, I believe it is wrong. We should respect our environment and live within it and not try to control or manipulate it. What’s the old saying? … It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature :slight_smile:

4

Is man a part of nature or is he apart from it? Species have come and gone for many years before man, during man, and I’m sure it will continue after man. There are some who even believe man had a part in making the wooly mammoth extinct. If so we’ve been helping get rid of species for a long time now.

Marc

5

The difference between the comet and the human is that, unless anyone wants to make a case for a sentient comet (Lib, if there’s anyone out there, I’d bet it’s you;)) with morality, the comet is acting in accord with the laws of gravity etc. The human is able to say, for example, “no, I really shouldn’t pollute the ever-loving heck out of this environment just because I can.”

There is, if one discounts the “just because you can doesn’t mean you should” argument, little to say that those people are wrong. Discounting that argument, however, might be difficult absent an outlook on humans as placing more emphasis on their survival as an animal not unlike any other than their ability to preserve life. I intend no implicit or explicit support or lack thereof of this argument, merely to assert its existence and important (IMO, anyway).

YMMV:)

6

Man may be a part of nature, but he is also capable of making a conscious choice regarding how he interacts with the rest of it. It is unlikely that any other species can, or does, make the decision to wipe other species out, or decided that an animal would look better as a trinket than as a living being.

Some species have gone extinct due what could be considered a consequence of natural selection - competition for territory, food, or other resources. Purposefully wiping out a species, or accidently doing so because of some misguided notion that this one has a part that is considered an aphrodisiac or that one has pretty feathers which some think would look better in a hat is not natural selection in action.

7

Is it okay for a rare species of anemone to die off in some deep-sea area because it couldn’t adapt to the new volcano’s sulfur intake?

Sure.

Is it okay for safari hunters to kill the African Elephant to extinction just for the ivory to make expensive pianos?

No.

I also agree with iampunha when (s)he said “just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”

8

The urge to post something slightly crude aside, Jonmarzie, I’m a he:) And yourself? Jon is male, but Marzie sounds female.

9

New species will evolve, more will die out, it just continues as it has for millions (or, if you’d rather believe, thousands) of years…

Until one day man will become extinct, and then: (see above)

Not saying it’s right, just saying it is. I think We think we have more control over this planet than we really have. To the earth we are merely one more species (and not a very successful one at that!).

10

I think it’s hypocritical for someone to say Save the Lemur in Madagascar while driving his SUV to the 7/11 for a six pack and running over a dog a cat and a kit fox. :wink:

But that’s just me!

11

I’d say we have more control inasmuch as we can do a pretty thorough job of polluting the ever-loving heck of it.

Undoing the bad stuff we’ve done is, from what I know (disclaimer: just your average Joe, no special scientific knowledge here), slightly more difficult:(

Philovance, while I understand the point you’re trying to make (that it is hypocritical to say “save the environment” while at the same time adopting an “I don’t care about it” attitude toward same), I don’t see how “driving his SUV to the 7/11 for a six pack and running over a dog a cat and a kit fox” prevents the lemurs of Madagascara from being saved or contributes to their plight:D

12

Drug-resistant staph is one of the species of living things which is not endangered enough.

13

Man is reason. All else is chaos, not worth preserving but for its use to man. Reason, and future-oriented mental states, make us morally considerable. The rest ain’t.

So f*ck all the other animals, unless they’re necessary to our existence. That would be my position. I’d love to see the human race go on for centuries, but if it means deprivation ad conservation to the point of being no more than monkeys, if it means a return to a purely agricultural society, then it means the destruction of what we deem human. Humanity is reason and intellect, humanity is the productivity of the human mind, the consequence of human reason, the greatness of the human individual. Let us be human. So I say, let us pursue the greatness that is humanity, let all else be peripheral.

Whatever is not human, is not morally considerable. So who gives a f*ck?

14

People who understand the implications of a food chain. People who aren’t indifferent to suffering. People who grasp that our human ace-in-the-hole is our brains.

15

**

I agree.

I suppose the arguement comes easily when using an aphrodisiac as an example. How about when humans compete with other animals for natural resources? Many animals have been brought to the brink of extinction or further because of our need for lumber, food, or other resources. Is that natural selection?

Marc

16

I don’t know how much I have to worry about the food chain. Most of the meat and plant matter I consume is bred by man for man. You could probably get rid of many of the mammels on this planet and humans would still be doing just fine. Now when the insects and bacteria start dying off I guess we’re in trouble.

Of course I’m all for preserving species and habitats. Not because I think they have a right to exist but because I think humans get a lot of enjoyment out of them. I think it is silly to stop a dam from being built to save some fish the size of my pinky because they’re endangered.

Marc

17

One of several problems I have with RexDart’s attitude is, how do we KNOW what’s necessary to our existence? After all, we’ve never lived in a world where species X, which might go extinct tomorrow, has been extinct. Sure, we’ve lived fine without the passenger pigeon and the dodo, but why tempt fate any more than we need to? And that’s not even counting the ones that might not be necessary, but would make our existences a lot easier (ie the old medicinal argument extended to plants).

Plus, some species might not be necessary, but so what? There are plenty for which we’d have a poorer world for their passing, in a non-survival sense. The lions of the Serengeti, for example, might not directly affect life in America, but not having any would be a tragedy, IMO. I realize that this might not touch the hearts of many people, and it’s not something that can be explained in logical terms, but heck, we don’t NEED cats or dogs either, do we? Besides, in the case of lions, how do you think many African nations would react if their main source of tourism, the animals, up and vanish?

Also, there’s the fact that the very reasons many species go extinct mean ecological damage that have a very good chance of harming US, such as deforestation and climate change. Further, a lot of the REASONS that these things happen are due not due to some noble pursuit of being human, but completely undesirable traits of humanity that, again, could very well come back to bite us in the ass (widespread poverty which leads third world nations to cut down rainforest, sheer greed that leads to animal poaching, carelessness and corner-cutting that cause oil spills). Why would we want to defend and pursue those traits and circumstances? Why shouldn’t we try to prevent these things?

Anyway, this is a very poorly supported and illogical post, I know. Just tossing out a few initial thoughts.

18

If anyone was looking for an example of my “an outlook on humans as placing more emphasis on their survival as an animal not unlike any other than their ability to preserve life” point, I think this is it empirically stated.

19

Extinction is a natural process, and we can’t be sure that we’re killing off any more animals than would’ve disappeared anyway. However, as has been noted, we are doing it consciously and without regard to the future, and that could really be screwing things up… if only for ourselves.

20

We are in an extinction event, right now; humanity is the main but not the only cause.
One way to solve this problem is to turn 80% of the world into a wildlfe reserve; no other method of earth-based management would slow down the rate of extinctions to an acceptable level.

However I recommend a different solution; the Blue Galaxy.
Right now we should be sampling the DNA of every endangered species, including plants and monera where possible; the Earth is not big enough to support every natural biome an the mass of humanity that exists now, and may exist in the future-
so we should leave, spread out into the Solar system and Galaxy, taking with us our ecosystem’s DNA; the places which can be adapted for Earth type life can become gardens, with humanity living in these gardens or in orbiting constructions of various kinds;
the billions of worlds that are available can be come havens for the species that are now dying on Earth. Billions of new species will also no doubt be created, written from scratch. We are in a species bottleneck now, but we have the potential for expanding the range of life over a billion new, blue worlds.

SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html