What appears to be the consensus is that unless significant global action is taken, Earth will simply become a gradually more drab and grotty place. Cockroaches will replace the more interesting insects, rats will replace the more interesting mammals, crows the more interesting birds, and so on.
To simply shrug and write off human-caused extinctions as merely another example of a species not adapting to its environment is at best a little myopic. (If humans destroy a vast tract of rainforest, it seems harsh to suggest that a tree-dwelling creature might “adapt” to not having a tree to live in.) Every year new medicines are derived from natural sources, and we’re disposing of more of these assets every day.
I guess, ultimately, that if you keep asking “so what?” you’ll eventually get someone to admit that it is fundamentally just a gut feeling that it is wrong to treat the planet like a privy, and that causing extinctions deprives us of not much more than simple diversity itself. I want to live in a colourful world full of the most interesting things possible. When I see yet another coastline fouled beyond belief, I feel as much regret and empathy as if I were to see a human being suffering.
Originally posted by MGibson:
“Is man a part of nature or is he apart from it?”
I’ve always thought that it was a huge cosmic irony that humankind, considered by many to be the ultimate tip of the pyramid in the scheme of living things, cannot really survive very well in the natural world without destroying it in some way or another.
As I mentioned, instances in which a species is driven to extinction as a result of competition, whether for territory, food, or any other resource which we ourselves are interested in, would be examples of extinction as a consequence of natural selection; indeed, a basic premise of natural selection is that individuals compete for limited resources, therefore any characteristic which provides an edge in this competition will be selected for.
And sure, we can simply chalk it up to natural selection when we drive this species or that to extinction, and in some cases it may well be true. But, as argued by others here and elsewhere, we are the supposedly rational beings in this whole “natural world” thing. Some such as RexDart might advocate killing everything just because we can. I would ask why we cannot use our superior brains to reach an equilibirum with other species and thereby maintain diversity. We have the ability to play the part of caretaker, rather than despoiler. So, my opinion is that we should do just that. Just because we can.
Now you’re on to something there, but how are we the pinnacle?
I would argue that we are a very un-successful species, evolutionaraly speaking.
We are neither the most recent, nor last species to evolve. We also are not the most prevelent. We are a twig with only one species, as opposed to, say bats; they have over 800 species, now that’s way more successful.
We may destroy some things while we are here, (I’m not proud of it either) but as far as being a true impact on the earth, we are not so big a deal (only to ourselves are we a big deal). The earth (and millions of critters with it) will out-live us, just wait and see.
Disclaimer:
You may have to wait anywhere from ten minutes to 4 or 5 billion years (give or take).
I think you are confusing diversity with success. Bats are an entire mammalian order, while humans are, at most, only a genus, and possibly only a single species (depending on who you ask, of course). Bats, then, are certainly more diverse than humans, in terms of species. But diversity of a group, in itself, does not necessarily directly translate to success. Humans flourish, as do bats (though individual species of bats may be endangered and others have gone extinct). Both can therefore be said to be successful.
I would argue precisely the opposite. It is estimated that at the dawn of our species, there were about 60k of us, total, in a small part of Africa. In a blink of an eye, evolutionarily speaking, we are now 6B strong and inhabit every continent on earth (I’m including the few scientists on Antarctica).
Show me another large mammal that has done that, and I’ll conceed the argument to you. As DF noted, your reference to bats is mistaken.
Humans are truly one of the most successful species in recent history.
Leaper: I just want to point out that you are making the exact same argument as Rexdart, but just coming to a slightly different conclusion. You are still saying that animals have value only becuase of their (in your case aesthetic) value to humans.
I would say that is only “wrong” to cause the extinction of a species in the sense that you are depriving other humans of experiencing that species. Right and wrong have no meaning outside of applying those terms to humans (beings capable of conscious, rationa, thought).
We have evolved to the point where we are capable of negating the evolutionary efforts of many millions of forms of life. In raw terms of “cutting out the competition”, so to speak, I do not think bats are really all that close (failing, of course, that a bat should post some evidence here for our perusal:D).
Otherwise, your point is difficult to prove or disprove (noted arguments by Mace and Finch excepted). In order to establish some sort of guideline by which to measure our, or any other being’s, success in evolving, we need to know what, if anything, they had to compete with to evolve. How tough was the competition? What, if anything, did that being have to do to survive/adapt? I would posit that, evolutionarily-speaking, we have left everyone else in the dust inasmuch as we control vast segments of the earth, have domesticated several different animals, have gotten others to successfully mimic us, etc.
I would say that is only “wrong” to cause the extinction of a species in the sense that you are depriving other humans of experiencing that species. Right and wrong have no meaning outside of applying those terms to humans (beings capable of conscious, rationa, thought). submitted by John Mace
So, basically, you’re saying that animals have no right to exist except insofar as we want them? Humans have no more right to exist than any other species on Earth. We have the right to try to succeed as best as we can, but so does everything else.
Most of us have trouble seeing the big picture because of the vast time scale of Earth’s history.
Geoligically, mankind came on the scene yesterday. (It’s probably more accurate to say yesterday, but let’s not quibble about analogies.)
The earth has undergone so many upheavals that mankind’s transgressions wouldn’t even register on the graph. The time is too short, and the damage too slight.
For the sake of perspective, the Permian Extinction wiped out 90% of all life on the planet. In fact, there have been several major die-offs and many lesser extinction events.
I’m not bying the “choice” argument, either. We’re losing acres of tropical forest every day, and that’s of major concern to the ecologist. But it’s of no concern to the Amazon Indian who has a family to feed. The same can be said of the ivory poachers and the cod fishermen of Newfoundland. They’re not the ones getting rich.
I have no wisdom to impart here, just saying that we overestimate our importance on a planet that has survived worse catastrophies that all our nuclear weapons put together could inflict.
At the end of the Permian, 90% of marine species perished, and about 70% of terrestrial vertebrates. It was not 90% of all life on the planet.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get across here.
That extinctions occur is not the point, in my opinion. It is that we, who are more than capable of not driving other species to extinction “just because we can”, do so anyway. If we are so special, then maybe we should try to act beyond simple and selfish “here and now” desires. There’s not much we can do about changing sea levels, volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts. We can, however, choose not to run bulldozers through rainforests just to make a buck.
**Is Extinction, whether or not caused directly or indirectly by humans, wrong ? **
My answer, No. Extinction is a natural process that involves the creatures eco-sphere. To maintain a species from dying out would be to artificially recreate its environment which in the long run is unsustainable. It may disrupt other species or divert resources form other speicies who may become endangered themselves.
To all the people who find this objectionable, take consolation in the fact that one of the creatures that humans today are inexorably pushing towards extinction are human beings.
Look at it this way. Imagine a world without any member of the genus Homo. In this world, does any species have a “right” to exist? No. Now put us in the world. How would a species now have a “right” to exist?
Let me be clear that I am not advocating causing species to go extinct. I’d hate to see lions gone, but I’m honest enough to say that it is a selfish desire of mine that they exist, not some fundamental “right” of nature.
Another way to look at this. How many people would mourn if mosquitoes were completely eliminated? What makes them any less deserving of life than lions other than our own selfish choice?
Consider that death comes to all of us. It is natural, and everything dies eventually. Yet, we deem it “wrong” to intentionally bring about the death of another human.
I view extinctions which are the result of our carelessness (or simple lack of caring) in much the same way. Yes, all species are eventually doomed to extinction. However, that does not make it “right” that we hurry the process along, does it?
Except some of those species may not have been endangered in the first place were it not for us. If we pave under all expanses of open ground we can find, for example, I don’t see how anyone can claim that any species thus wiped out were bound for the proverbial grave anyway. There were very likely other alternatives if the ground was necessary for our own use; we would have brought about their demise prematurely and unnecessarily.
John Mace, that there are more people than there used to be does not necessitate the conclusion that humans are not becoming extinct. To wit:
Humans may be doing something that is slowing their populating of the Earth, and this thing may be increasing more quickly than the population is increasing. Idea, not totally supported by fact, but there you have it.
Human population may be heading toward the point where humans are unable to sustain themselves, and in a brilliant twist of fate decide to try and save all rather than rest assured in the ability to save some (for example, trying to build one enormous bomb shelter, or whatever, to save everyone, instead of building a few to guarantee the survival of enough to continue the species successfully).
The former seems a bit odd, I know, and is pure conjecture, but worth considering if only from a theoretical point. The second doesn’t seem all that outlandish, and does include some sort of moral “We gotta save everyone! To hell with guaranteeing survival of some, what kind of animals are we if we can’t guarantee the safety of all?” Um, smart ones?
Another point of yours:
Inasmuch as we are able to keep lions alive (if only for our own amusement, plus the fur, and dangit baby cubs are so cute! etc), and there is no need for them to cease to exist (we aren’t exactly struggling to compete with them for anything, last I checked), there seems to me no reason not to continue to allow them to exist and further, if it does not endanger us, to strive in some way to preserve them.
It is also possible (theory/conjecture here of the WAG variety) that something could happen to the soil content of arable land such that herbivores and their food died out, and were we to eliminate their predators before that happened, if nothing else we’d have eliminated a finite source of food.
Finally, dwalin posits:
Why? This strikes me as opinion, not fact. If we can guarantee (make as a premise, say) the fact of our own survival even if we are the only living beings on earth, is there a scientific argument requiring that we sustain/allow to continue to exist/strive to protect from disappearance any other living organism upon which we do not rely?
Been a while since I debated out of both sides of my mouth in the same post, let alone in GD:D
Alright, as I tally things, there’s about half of you with me, half against. A little disappointing, but better than I’d get out of the Yahoo trailer trash who can’t spell anything longer than two syllables…
A few responses:
First off, the general consensus is that the sorts of wildfires the Western US has been experiencing over the last few years are far from natural. It’s widely regarded to be the result of years of misguided complete fire suppression (by humans) in ecosystems which need periodic low-level fire. Without these, too much brush, dead tinder and the like builds up, 'til the whole thing eventually goes up like a bomb. Beyond that, I think I’m missing something from the second part of your statement - are you implying that extinctions caused “on purpose” would be less wrong than “accidental” ones?
Regarding your first question, I’d argue that, for the most part, we are apart from nature at this stage in our existence. The extent to which we are part of nature, in my mind, depends on the extent to which we are subject to the same laws as the rest of nature. Foremost among these has been the power of natural selection. I’d argue that we’ve almost completely escaped that one. We don’t need to be able to hunt, we (almost) all have access to shelter (i.e. we don’t need to be able to figure out how to survive in the wild), and most of the little infirmities that would serve to weed out individuals of most other species (i.e. poor eyesight, most birth defects, many metabolic and biochemical disorders, etc, etc) have been beaten back by medical science. Sure, there may be some exceptions (much of the Third World), but I’d say that modern man has risen above nature.
Point #2 - You are correct that species have gone extinct since the dawn of life. However, they don’t usually go extinct at the rate that is currently occurring; 600 million years of the fossil record make that very clear. The rates that we’re currently at have only happened a small handfull (8-10) of times. The assertion that man helped finish off the wooly mammoth (and the mastodon, and the cave bear) is also correct. However, I’m not sure of its relevance to a debate on the morality of human-caused extinctions; even if Cro-Magnon man had the knowledge and communications base to know what he collectively was doing, I doubt very seriously if he had the ethical base to even begin to fathom a concept of “right”. The only question is how much we’ve changed in 10,000 years of “civilization”.
I’m not even sure where to start with this idiocy. I hope for the sake of every one who ever has to deal with you that you don’t apply the ultra-Macchiavellian bullsh*t to your everyday life.
I can’t speak for man’s having the market cornered on reason; I suggest that you be careful in assuming that you can. This “we’re above all others” argument isn’t the damn slightest bit different from that used to justify slavery, the Holocaust, and any one of a number of other outstanding episodes in human history. As for “all else being chaos” - I’d submit that that’s an even bigger load of sh*t. Hell, most societies of social insects are less chaotic than human societies. Hundreds of thousands of ants, bees, termites, whatever, working as a single unit for the good of the colony/hive. No crime, no class warfare, etc - show me one human society that can claim that level of order.
Since you seem to regard “intellect” (specifically, human intellect measuarble by human standards) as the only thing worth deciding what lives and what dies, I offer you the following. I’m willing to wager that, by probably any measure you want to use, I’m your intellectual superior. Furthermore, I guarantee you your life isn’t “necessary to my existence”… get where I’m going??
My point is this: Intellect ain’t the whole ballgame; if you have no soul, no compassion, no appreciation for the other lives (human and otherwise) around you, you’re nothing but a (very dangerous) machine. Not exactly the definition of “greatness” I’d like to strive for…
See above… yes we can. Unless we take another comet/asteroid strike in the very near future, we can pretty much rest assured we’ll be the undisputed extinction-causing agent of this era.
I’m guessing you’re not much of a religious man, eh John? Again, I’d be careful about insisting that rational thought is the exclusive purview of humans. An example - crows have been shown to fashion tools, bending and re-shaping materials they’ve never seen before, to accomplish tasks. Can that be done without some level of rational thought?
i dunno, how about famine, war, nuclear weapons, over-population, greenhouse gases and overall pollution, holes in the ozone, the ocassional death pestilence every decade, human genetic experiments, Barney the dinosaur, nerve gases and biological weapons coming into the hands of suicidal terrorists, decreasing natural resources, oil shortages… take your pick of any one or combinations of these plus others that might have slipped off the top of my head.
People living longer lives having more babies is not necesarily a good thing as far as a species goes. The earth can only support a certain amount of organisms and each have to live in harmony or the eco system they support withers and dies.
Are crows (or any non-human animal) capable of right or wrong in a moral sense? That is what I was getting at.
But answer my earlier queston: Would it be wrong for humans to cause the extinction of mosquitoes? We are, BTW, trying to do that. Should we stop? Should we more judiciously exterminate them, making sure we preserve enough for future generations?
Slayer: When a species exhausts it’s resources, it does not necessarily die off. More likely, it’s population is reduced in numbers until it’s resources come back into balance with its needs. I certainly agree that we could cause our own exitnction. But that in no way means we will.
Wiping out every living human would be very difficult to do w/o destroying the entire earth (and that’s possible, too, but not likely).
