Qiute possible human caused deforestation had more to do with extinction than hunting.
Who knows what extinct species may have benefited man if they hadn’t disappeared? Perhaps a cure for ravaging diseases like cancer were contained in a plant that is no longer with us? Impossible to know, but we are quite likely poorer for the absence.
This May not be exactly the same thing, but the mass extermination of sparrows (for eating some grain) resulted in plague of locusts no longer being eaten by the sparrows.
Yes, the cod was in decline long before seal hunting was an endangered activity. Massive industrial overfishing was the culprit. Allegedly (according to something I heard on CBC radio) the stocks are slowly coming back. But it will be decades before you can simply go out and easily catch 5 foot long adults - which apparently used to be routine before the massive trawlers came along. In the days of the explorers they described schools so thick you could almost walk on them - much as the passenger pigeon darkened the skies…
IIR the passenger pigeons among other reasons were also hunted because they fed on grain in he fields, so the farmers across North America had it in for them. Also remember than many of these species wintered in the Caribbean and South America where prime breeding grounds are also being razed for agriculture.
Pushing the definitional boundaries, and not an extinction but a pretty scary moment in time, the Great Barrier Reef which is essentially one long connected chain of corals and other marine organisms has had major bleaching events that have caused an as yet uncertain amount of permanent die off in some locations. The attributed causes include global warming, vastly increased silt runoff from the land due to farming, changed fishing practices etc.
If the Great Barrier Reef died, it would have potentially massive impacts on regional fish stocks, as well as tourism.
Dangit…‘need to get my eyes checked, agin’.
Homo neanderthaliensis, H. floresiensis, *H. altai *… what might the world be like if we weren’t the only extant hominin species?
I came in to say this. We’ll likely never know just how much we’ve lost.
Don’t feel bad. Because:
Is specifically referenced in the O.P.
I couldn’t answer this question when it was posted, because I couldn’t think of anything. Passenger pigeons used to “darken the skies” and now they don’t. So what? Do humans need darkened skies for some reason?
Its established well in this thread that the gradual loss of a species causes shifts in other species that causes stress on human endeavors, but thats too abstract a concept for most people to follow. I recognize that we should avoid extincting species because its “bad” behavior but I can’t find a way to translate that to people who aren’t as well informed on ecological and evolutionary science.
It’s conjectured that Silphium was a useful abortifacient. We don’t find it anymore so we can’t be sure. I feel like calling bullshit on Wikipedia on this one. If it aborted fetuses, Pliny wouldn’t have been obtuse about it, he would have written angry treatises that evil women dared to second guess smart people – defined as male in his mind – for population control. And Wikipedia says many plants in the Parsley family have estrogenic properties? Sorry. That’s yet more conjecture. No one tells pregnant women to avoid parsley. And I’ve never heard of a woman gorging on parsley because “My body, dammit.”
Anyway, a plant that might possibly have existed, that might possibly have helped control conception – well, I think that’s weak argument for human caused extinction directly affecting humans that they can suddenly see. If it were more definitively known at the time, and the Roman empire, as it Christianized, maintained the use of the herb to control reproduction, calling the plant part of God’s will, then maybe that’d be plausible. And would have been a significant departure from how our culture developed.
But that’s far from how humans behaved with regard to reproduction, starting with the ancient Greeks – Hippocrates specifically outlawed abortifacient’s – men decide how many children and when. Can’t leave an important decision like that up to them peoples what grow them in their bellies. Pfft. Like they’re capable, in that state, of making an informed decision.:rolleyes:
I’m getting off topic.
I don’t think people were crushed when the scarcity of whales caused the switch to petroleum. As I recall, people were hawking it as a cleaner burning, better smelling, easier to store alternative. Peat, coal, whale oil, petroleum – the skies over London and Pittsburgh are gonna be just as smoky whichever is in use.
Certainly not. Nor do they need the associated huge quantities of passenger pigeon poop.
But the birds did serve as an easy food source, and so people used it for a long time – why not? There seemed to be an inexhaustible supply of them, and nobody minded if a few were missing. Nobody knew just how fragile the species was, though, to even a small drop.
the OP didn’t ask if the species was needed. Just if its loss impacted people. It did.
The “extinction” of wolves in the lower 48 (until re-introduced recently) may have created an opportunity for coyotes to flourish - and being smaller and more wide-ranging, they pose a greater threat to a wider variety of animals wild and domestic.
Actually replacing coal with petroleum vastly improved air quality. Even the most noxious diesel engine is nothing compared to the thick black smoke steam powered engines produced.
To take another angle on the question, I submit smallpox. I believe it does not exist in the wild any more, and only exists in secure labs. It was an effective population control for humans, and as a result of our cleverness in finding a way to eradicate it, world population has soared (about double since 1977 - when the last naturally-occurring case of smallpox was treated). The loss of Smallpox is a good thing on many levels, but it also had some consequences.
It is left to conjecture if the world’s human population would be where it is now if smallpox were not made extinct.
The truth is, every single species we destroy has an impact on us, because we are but a part of a complexity of life we do not have the capacity to comprehend. We see the whole vastly intricate web as “what’s in it for us?” and nothing more. The self-centered greed and shortsightedness of human beings is eating the very fabric of the planet and we sit around and talk about would we really miss whales if we killed every last one of them. I mean, we have video.
This kind of discussion is why I have had a desperate loathing for the human race since I reached the age of reason.
The most probable extinction which will matter the most to the human race will be an insect, an alga, a microbe, which we either will destroy or already have destroyed, without ever knowing or caring to know of its existence.
Here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/index.html
I believe the smallpox virus is considered to be extinct in nature, and that has had immeasurable positive effect on humanity.
Even more so, if we could indeterminate the malarial mosquitoes, which probably kill more people than all other macroscopic animal species combined…
I don’t think that’s ever been proven in any rigorous way.
They’re a weird case. We’re still not certain what’s killing them, if this is a natural cycle or not, or even if there’s a real decrease at all (the numbers vary a lot from year to year, and we haven’t been counting very long). And there are places where there still seem to be an awful lot of them, and none of the supposed causes come close to explaining the supposed numbers (which means one or both is wrong).
Bees are probably the case most in need of specific research right now; hopefully they’ll get through the current politically anti-science period with enough time left to actually get that study.
Thinking about this further… IIRC the introduction f wolves had an amazing effect on wildlife in Yellowstone. Deer became more cautious, so they spent less time in the open areas. (“Stay away from the meadow, Bambi!”) Thus trees started growing where saplings had been chewed down before, forest cover became thicker, etc.
Of course, we’re not deer, so it probably doesn’t matter.
Another one is rinderpest, a viral disease of cattle and other animals which was declared eradicated in 2011. This disease used to cause great economic loss, and sometimes even famine.
Nor will it. Not the point.