Should we be protecting species?

[xbuzzerx]

Many can cause domino effects in the ecosystem. The population of many species of sharks, for example, is low. That is not because they are increasingly failing to serve a purpose or survive. It is because the population of predators, particularly apex predators, are always low in the animal world among the higher orders. But that doesn't mean they don't serve a very critical ecological purpose which can affect the entire food chain in many cases.

It's one thing if a particular animal is simply displaced by another which outcompetes it and fills the same niche within the ecology. It's another if the species is dying off because of mass industrialized commercial harvesting and nothing is prepared to fill the niche. It creates shockwaves within the food chain which can potentially be disastrous.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

A thought occurred to me recently, about whether we should be making an effort to protect endangered species.
If a species has very low numbers, surely its time is passing, like the dinosaurs? Why do we bother to try and keep them alive?

I can understand it moreso if the animal is endangered as a direct link of human influence, but otherwise, isn't it just interfering with nature taking its course?

Any thoughts?

human ape foot print anytime look out a window aircondtion chemical interoir coofins call houses of a 1st world awsums
_ ooh time a get new white kitchen wot kill evarythang so we no die?_

anyway

_ world leadurs get a think!_
quick vom bag

ha

thankyou

 

[xbuzzerx]

Is Sloppy protected? I think he might be the last of his kind.

 

[gsdx]

Why should we protect them? Because, in many cases, we're the cause of their endangerment, and we are the direct cause of many extinctions in the recent past.

 

[zoltanspawn]

...
I can understand it moreso if the animal is endangered as a direct link of human influence,...

There's a mass extinction of species taking place currently. The extinctions are as a direct link of human influence.

Consider this analogy: if you were responsible for killing entire groups of people, you ought to 1) stop and 2) try to help those you've harmed.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Is Sloppy protected? I think he might be the last of his kind.

ha
SSSSSSH"

ooh

here a bit a awsums human apes nows figa put back or correction or keep insnature where it original was? why?
fact a human apes onlyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy a fly toys thangs 100 yer wot spit eye a time
plenty room fa human ape endager self haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
anyway

back ta popcorn livin ans turn artic inta golf course fa supa folk

anyway 2

Harry potta sav planet so no worry
_HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA_

thankyou

 

[Willie Boy]

As has been said, we tend to be the cause of the species' endangerment. Most often directly, but many times also indirectly. We destroy the food source and the creatures suffer famine and die out. Or we take away grazing lands and elk and deer begin to thin and die out. The carnivores that feed on them start to become scarce.

Another problem is that it throws the ecosystem out of whack. Certain grasses that are eaten by elk begin to grow rampant..... They overtake other plant life and this causes a shortage of certain plants eaten by different species. These animals begin to die out. The animals that feed on those animals then begin to die out as their food supply becomes scarce. Or they take to hunting other species. Suddenly you have species being hunted when they weren't before. They begin to die out. Where does this all end? Eventually with no more animals on the Earth and man eating man to survive. Then man finally dies out as he's stuck eating himself as his last meal.

Why not just end it quickly with a great nuclear war? Only creatures left alive after that are cockroaches. Maybe they'll evolve into a sentient species and do a far better job of caring for this planet than we ever did.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Or maybe the first...eh, eh...

(Now pictures Sloppy as something out of The Dark Crystal)

 

[borg69unimatrix]

Survival of the fittest was at one time the law of the land. It ensured the best genetic material prospered. Then we became humanitarian and ensured everyone survives, if at all possible. These charity people breed, continually polluting the gene pool. Do you think we've evolved to a point where we're causing more harm than good?

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

fittest ? wot if a supa stoopid? like a up latest human apes taday runnin da game ?
-list professions ans carreeers -
dat a bit cheese
_ooh lick _


anyway human apes awsums eva figa planet flat ins a tey plot land ans so save lot nature fall offs cliff ans hurt self

wot a kool a ask question 500 yr go ans see wot a supa awsums figa it HAAAAAAAAAAA
-da stars say it goin be dead bees fall out sky_
£ ooh wot at a means?£
dunno but in futre mak movie it wot ans lot folk go ooh ans stuff up self popcorn wot gentic up beeta latest of sumthang wot latest befor but no latest now ans headache
£ still get ma honey? £
_ya gots hubby troublls?_
£ wot? £
_nothin oh great 1 _


ans now

thankyou

 

[xbuzzerx]

Survival of the fittest was at one time the law of the land. It ensured the best genetic material prospered. Then we became humanitarian and ensured everyone survives, if at all possible. These charity people breed, continually polluting the gene pool. Do you think we've evolved to a point where we're causing more harm than good?

If a viral disease wiped out all of humanity by this time next year, would it be that better genetic material prospered or would it simply be a biological catastrophe that wiped us out?

So far as I know, no other species with even remotely comparable intelligence, abilities, or even a remotely similar role in Earth's ecosystem is ready and waiting to take over and fill our gap were we to disappear tomorrow. Maybe in a couple million years I guess? But even so, would we attribute that to their superior genetic material or to evolutionary luck?

Being outcompeted by a very similar species consuming the same resources but doing it better vs. simply being wiped out with no natural successor are quite different things, with very different impacts on the ecology around them.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

If a viral disease wiped out all of humanity by this time next year, would it be that better genetic material prospered or would it simply be a biological catastrophe that wiped us out?

So far as I know, no other species with even remotely comparable intelligence, abilities, or even a remotely similar role in Earth's ecosystem is ready and waiting to take over and fill our gap were we to disappear tomorrow. Maybe in a couple million years I guess? But even so, would we attribute that to their superior genetic material or to evolutionary luck?

Being outcompeted by a very similar species consuming the same resources but doing it better vs. simply being wiped out with no natural successor are quite different things, with very different impacts on the ecology around them.

takes over wot? a weather forcast?

ants ans a penguins debatin girraffys maybe ans bettin 2ta 4000?

lot a speices way smarta then human apes

human apes no can figa wot smart is

haaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

argue human centric view?

nice folk world ova keeps a pets ans mak a nature inta pretty grass ans folwoerys ans stuff ans mor stuff ans stuff
like DUH! human centirc obvious fa age

question late way pass da tick tock

it not sotry time fa teddy

_ tis why tak 250000 year fa apes finds door nob? _
harry potta again

thankyou

 

[xbuzzerx]

But Nature can and does ignore the workings of man, especially in the biosphere.

Our natural tendency is to aggrandize man's "control" of the environment.

I don't agree at all. Mankind's tendency is always to default to "no matter what we do, it doesn't have THAT much effect.." It's the justification of virtually everything destructive we do.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

But Nature can and does ignore the workings of man, especially in the biosphere.

Our natural tendency is to aggrandize man's "control" of the environment.

ans wen titantic sinkin nooes a discuss ins get undys off let get wet

who wot is our?
-no reply dat_

thankyou

 

[USEDCAR]

Laws needs to be set to protect lands and trees but its only going to get worse people are using land to build housing developments and shopping centers. Its pretty sad seeing old buildings sit and deteriorate for so many years and they are cutting down the woods to build a store.

 

[xbuzzerx]

No, that is the argument of the industrialists and those denying global warming.

It is one thing to affect the atmosphere, but the biosphere is subject to a great many natural influences, not just temperature. Many vectors interact.

It's difficult to consign away to a vague miasma of complicated factors threats to animal species when many of them suffer very directly because of our actions, including direct and intentional harvesting.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I don't agree at all. Mankind's tendency is always to default to "no matter what we do, it doesn't have THAT much effect.." It's the justification of virtually everything destructive we do.

Yes, in fact if you do a brief survey of what is causing the mass extinction of species, the damage is almost totally caused by humans: commercial development, agriculture, energy production, transportation, disruption of resources and loss of habitat to humans, introduction of invasive species, pollution, climate change. Only an inconsequential number of the threats facing species may be attributed to non-human factors like geological changes.

 

[chrisrobin]

A morality tale: Google passenger pigeon. A sad story...the last survivor died in Cincinnati in March of 1900. Major cause of extinction - good old homo sapiens. Once, flocks of passenger pigeons darkened the sky. And then there were none.

 

[Alnitak]

If a viral disease wiped out all of humanity by this time next year, would it be that better genetic material prospered or would it simply be a biological catastrophe that wiped us out?

So far as I know, no other species with even remotely comparable intelligence, abilities, or even a remotely similar role in Earth's ecosystem is ready and waiting to take over and fill our gap were we to disappear tomorrow. Maybe in a couple million years I guess? But even so, would we attribute that to their superior genetic material or to evolutionary luck?

Being outcompeted by a very similar species consuming the same resources but doing it better vs. simply being wiped out with no natural successor are quite different things, with very different impacts on the ecology around them.