Does the argument for increased biodiversity have limits? For example, biodiversity is great as long as they are cute cuddly animals that don’t threaten people. Or are there species that wouldn’t be missed at all if they were to go extinct?
Is there always a negative consequence for eliminating a species? If the AIDS virus were eradicated, would anybody miss it? How about ants? What species would you eliminate?
Knowing I will get flak from biologists who will point out the benefits, I would eliminate flies and mosquitos. Are viruses really alive? We can do without most of them, I think.
The WHO decided not to eliminate the last remaining smallpox cultures link so it would seem there is a moratorium on eliminating any species. Who knows what its value will be down the road.
Man is the only species that we know is capable of that feeling of ‘missing something.’ Therefore, if we eliminated homo sap, there might not be anything left that could miss us.
I can’t imagine losing the adorable Fire Ant (Solenopsis wagneri or invicta, depending on who you want to believe) would do us much harm.
I also don’t think we’d miss any of the many parastic fungi, such as the wonder twins Trichophyton and Epidermophyton, beloved my many an athelete’s foot/ringworm/jock itch sufferer.
Would the domestic biome be devastated by the loss of the “Silverfish” (Lepisma saccharina, et al)?
Probably the most beneficial for the planet would be to eliminate the human species. As far as earth’s environment is concerned, it would result in nothing but positive effects, yes?
It’s very difficult to prove but there is so much anecdotal evidence that dogs miss people and other pets when they are gone that is difficult to ignore. And i’m not just talking about “I miss him, he used to feed me, i’m hungry now” i’m talking about emotionally missing someone.
Look, biodiversity is wonderful but it’s not sacred. The species count was not meant to remain constant. It’s bound to fall.
I nominate the pigeon.
I will now hide from Mike Tyson
Pandas.
But they’re so tasty.
/sense forum change anyway
Species diversity is like a hologram: you can lose a lot and still have almost as good a picture as before, but there are limits. Given that we’ve made some colossal blunders in the past with well-intentioned efforts to “manage” nature, it would be presumptuous to think we know what could “safely” become extinct and what wouldn’t.
That caveat aside, I wouldn’t have any trouble with the extinction of all parasites that have Homo Sapiens as their sole host.
Lawyers?
Until the unsupervised nuclear reactors went critical, and no one was around to clean up all the toxic goo that started leaking out of the various dumps around the planet.
A virus is generally not classified as a living organism, so eliminating the HIV virus (pardon the redundancy) would not affect biodiversity. Off with its head (if it had a head)!
I’ve always had 2 main choices that add nothing and sap everything from an environment: rats and racoons, as all they do is scrounge and cause disease.
I hate deer just as much, but as long as they’re a food source, I suppose they have to live.
But since evidence suggests the only species capable of the value judgment that would view this as positive is homo sapiens we have a bit of a logical quandry to resolve here.
I suggest making it voluntary: all who view this as a net positive step are encourage to eliminate themselves. The remainder will take stock of the resulting situation and proceed from there.
(Count me among those who feel this thread is headed toward IMHO.)
Well, what enviromental damage has been done by the loss of the passenger pidgeon or the dodo?
<mod>
Right you are. Off you go. Ta-ta. Sayonara! Hasta Luego! Aloha! Au Revior! Auf Weidersein! Adios!
sub…he never said goodbye…[/sub]
</mod>
It’s really vague to talk about biodiversity without context - one of those things that doesn’t make sense without its attached descriptors. It would be like asking an economist: Does the arguement for an increasing stock index have limits? Which stock index are we talking about? The Dow Jones? The index of Mortuary-related companies? Context provides a sense for this question, it’s not specific enough just to ask: Is biodiversity good? You have to ask: Is biodiversity good in XXXXX situation?
There really aren’t that many animals out there that can threaten people - lots of people ask: what about wolves or sharks or lions, etc. To give some context, sharks kill less than 12 people per year out of 6 billion. Lions and wolves kill less than that (I suspect wolves kill 0 people per year, but don’t have a cite handy. The only critters that really pose a threat to humans are parasites/pathogens, mostly protozoa & such like malaria, and we are actively trying to wipe them out. As John Mace noted, viruses are not considered completely alive, and aren’t counted as species or in biodiversity measurements.
I don’t know, and I doubt anyone could tell you. We tend to discover the negative consequences of eliminating species long after the fact, so it’s a fool’s bet to say: OK, let’s eliminate this species, nothing will come of it. We can’t know that unless we’ve already eliminated the species!
That being said, if the species is, like malaria parasites, a threat to human health, I don’t know of anyone who opposes trying to eliminate malaria and I think that’s an example of a species it’s worthwhile to try to eliminate. I would not favor eliminating species that have no or very minor negative effects on people.
As was mentioned, HIV is not considered a living species. Ants have pretty important roles in decomposition, and I think we’d notice pretty quickly if we wiped out species of ants. The crap (some literal, but mostly figurative crap from dead plants & animals) would pile up.
I’d eliminate malaria, giardia, and some other protozoa.
We’ve done a pretty good job of eliminating the screwworm fly from North and Central America plus some Caribbean islands.[sup]1[/sup] As far as anyone can tell, it hasn’t had any negative effect on the ecology of those regions and I doubt if even the staunchest environmentalist mourns its going.
[sup]1[/sup] Getting rid of it in South America is going to be a bigger challenge, though.