What are some extinct species whose loss has impacted humans?

[TriPolar]

@Ulfreida

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.

While I agree that humans have selfishly and short-sightedly destroyed important portions of our ecology the ‘grand plan’ still includes extinction. There aren’t enough resources to have diversity without some losers in the game. We could certainly do better, but we won’t necessarily be seriously affected by the loss of any particular species, and we wouldn’t be here if some of them hadn’t already gone extinct. Considering what we’ve done already it is certainly prudent not to roll the dice, the next species we wipe out may be the one we needed most. Or might be us.

[somepumpkin]

@Darren_Garrison

The problem is (As Jared Diamond pointed out in his book Collapse) “new normalism.” Or that frog being slowly boiled in a pot idea. Extinctions take long enough that we don’t really notice the consequences. (A hypothetical past) you knows that there are only small flocks of passenger pigeons around, but roll your eyes when great-grampa talks about how when he was a kid the sky was filled with them. The smaller number is normal for that you, just like an absence of them is normal now.[…]

@Ranchoth

For an odd nominee: possibly Silphium.

“What a thousand acres of Silphiums looked like when they tickled the bellies of the buffalo is a question never again to be answered, and perhaps not even asked.” -Aldo Leopold

[Saintly_Loser]

@jtur88

The codfish is very nearly extinct, ending several centuries of Eastern Canada’s traditional economy. This extinction took place quickly, over a few decades, caused largely to the development of factory trawlers, that could virtually vacuum the codfish out of the Grand Banks and process them at sea. The cod fishery peaked at 800,000 tons in the last century, and stocks are now estimated to be less than 1% of that. Part of the cause of the cod reduction was the abolition of the harp seal hunt, which protected huge populations of a major natural predator on the remaining cod.

Yep. I’m married to a Newfoundlander, and she’s old enough to have reached adulthood before the cod moratorium in 1992.

I wouldn’t see the difference, not having met her until years after the moratorium, but she tells me the Newfoundland I know now isn’t the Newfoundland she grew up in.

[Lumpy]

@Lumpy

I don’t think that’s ever been proven in any rigorous way.

@Ulfreida

Nor will it. Not the point.

It’s the point if this grand mystical union of the great web of all life on Earth is nothing but a romantic fantasy that exists in some peoples’ heads. It’s not at all inconceivable that there could be species so inconsequential that their extinction would more or less mean bupkus to the rest of the planet. Now I don’t know if that’s the case at all; maybe life really is so complexly interwoven that any pulled thread unravels the whole. But simply asserting that that’s the situation doesn’t amount to more than saying “sez you”. And if your point is to decry the callousness of humanity then fine, but that’s a statement about ethics and morality, not ecology.

[Jeff_Lichtman]

It occurs to me that extinctions usually happen gradually enough that people can adjust before a species completely dies off. For instance, mastodons died off gradually enough that the populations that depended on them were able to find other sources of food and clothing.

[Ulfreida]

@Lumpy

It’s the point if this grand mystical union of the great web of all life on Earth is nothing but a romantic fantasy that exists in some peoples’ heads. It’s not at all inconceivable that there could be species so inconsequential that their extinction would more or less mean bupkus to the rest of the planet. Now I don’t know if that’s the case at all; maybe life really is so complexly interwoven that any pulled thread unravels the whole. But simply asserting that that’s the situation doesn’t amount to more than saying “sez you”. And if your point is to decry the callousness of humanity then fine, but that’s a statement about ethics and morality, not ecology.

Sez you.

[nachtmusick]

@Lumpy

It’s the point if this grand mystical union of the great web of all life on Earth is nothing but a romantic fantasy that exists in some peoples’ heads. It’s not at all inconceivable that there could be species so inconsequential that their extinction would more or less mean bupkus to the rest of the planet. Now I don’t know if that’s the case at all; maybe life really is so complexly interwoven that any pulled thread unravels the whole. But simply asserting that that’s the situation doesn’t amount to more than saying “sez you”. And if your point is to decry the callousness of humanity then fine, but that’s a statement about ethics and morality, not ecology.

If the fact that you eat every day, collect a paycheck, have an orgasm, and tuck yourself in at night is all that matters to you, than of course all else is a romantic fantasy. Let the rest of us provide for you. Why should you worry about what others worry about?

But were it ever to trouble your simple mind, all that you depend on is “complexly” interwoven with all life on Earth.

[Colibri]

@nachtmusick

If the fact that you eat every day, collect a paycheck, have an orgasm, and tuck yourself in at night is all that matters to you, than of course all else is a romantic fantasy. Let the rest of us provide for you. Why should you worry about what others worry about?

But were it ever to trouble your simple mind, all that you depend on is “complexly” interwoven with all life on Earth.

Moderator Warning

nachtmusick, you’ve been around long enough to know that insults are not permitted in General Questions. This is an official warning. Do not do this again.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Pleonast]

@Jeff_Lichtman

It occurs to me that extinctions usually happen gradually enough that people can adjust before a species completely dies off. For instance, mastodons died off gradually enough that the populations that depended on them were able to find other sources of food and clothing.

Cite?

Just kidding. But we don’t actually know that human populations who depended on mastodons survived their extinction. They might’ve gone extinct as well, to be replaced by other human groups who didn’t depended on them.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Silver_lining

Perhaps some of the massive animals, which could have helped with the soil for farming for loosening it up, fertilizing it, and being used as a beast of burden.

Heh. Thomas Jefferson, in his written orders to Lewis and Clark, told them to keep an eye out for mammoths, since it was thought even by well-educated people in 1804 that there might still be some in the North American interior.

@MrDibble

Homo neanderthaliensis, H. floresiensis, *H. altai *… what might the world be like if we weren’t the only extant hominin species?

I highly recommend Yuval Harari’s Sapiens for an interesting look at how our particular flavor of humanity came to dominate the planet.