[1] http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org/overview.html
Could we stop the poaching of near extinct species for some unproven alternative medicine? Hopefully.
In other news, terrorists and other enemies of the US are trying to make the Yellowstone volcano explode, that's scary. Can we not "cool" the magma under Yellowstone? Maybe even use that heat? Are geothermal plants too expensive?
Animals killing animals is still "natural" predator:prey survival. Humans killing an entire species by shooting them isn't any less natural than wolves hunting their primary food source to extinction.
The difference is humans don't go extinct when we kill a species - because we aren't dependent on them as a primary source of survival.
Most animals are foragers (eg. squirrels) or hunters (eg. lions) and some can be both (eg. bears) but very, very few animals are creators of their own food.
I cannot think of any other animal that aids another species in breeding for the sole purpose of consumption for survival. Although I can think of a few bacterium examples or even symbiotic relationships. It's not quite the same level I'm arguing for here.
Not quite the same thing you're talking about, but some ants farm aphids to eat something they produce. I would give a citation, but there are a ton if you search, and I don't know if any one is notably better.
I'd say that counts. The others don't seem to be on the "same level" as to what I'm thinking - though the distinction is possibly even arbitrary.
Thanks for the info!
I think the point they were trying to make is that there is no other sapient symbiotic relationships, but there are few sapient species so it's kind of moot.
Symbiotic relationships are not quite the same - again with my definition arguably being arbitrary. I consider a symbiotic relationship to be when two animals happen to benefit from each other due to their actions and it is not one species using another.
That is the case for most symbiotic relationships I can think of. For example, pilot fish and sharks. Sharks happen to host bacteria that the pilot fish eat. Eating the bacteria is obviously beneficial for the pilot fish and happens to benefit the shark as well. It's not that the pilot fish specifically chose sharks to eat bacteria from. This appears to be happenstance.
Some of the examples of ants and aphids seems to be happenstance. The ants defend an aphid from another creature that eats/destroys the aphids so that the ants can eat it. That's fighting to protect their food source - something I consider "necessary for survival" and not "beneficial for survival".
The case I cited where the ants will harvest the aphid eggs, store them safely for the winter, then bring them back to plants to hatch is along the lines of "beneficial for survival". It's an intentional use of aphids as a food source with what appears to be a methodology of breeding and sustaining their honeydew food source. It's a "step above" a symbiotic relationship in my eyes. [2]
[1] http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2814...
[2] Again, I recognize that where I'm drawing my line might be arbitrary to some people. I hope I explained how I see some of the scenarios as different to one another in a way that other people can understand where I stand. If not, please ask questions.
The problem is that we aren't starving ourselves into extinction as a result of overkilling rhinos. We're simply moving on to the next species and driving them extinct, then moving on to the next, etc.
So basically, by the time we are extinct, it may be too late.
That's my point - and I don't see how it's a problem unless you consider the extinction of the human race a good thing?
>We're simply moving on to the next species and driving them extinct, then moving on to the next, etc.
So it's as if wolves ran out of moose and deer so began hunting rabbits and small game. They still hadn't figured out how to raise their own food and will eventually run out of food sources. Thankfully, humans have the "food sources" problem sorted out. [1]
>So basically, by the time we are extinct, it may be too late.
Late for what? Even "without human interaction" - animals still go extinct. It's a natural thing, even a very normal thing. With 99% of species going extinct I would argue it's not normal for a species to not go extinct.
Humans are largely against other species going extinct though. I guess there's that tinge of guilt for being the "root cause of the problem". Though to pretend it is somehow unnatural and not how the world works is silly and childish. Predators have caused prey to go extinct for hundreds of thousands of years.
[1] Because we grow food and raise animals for consumption. Most species don't do this.
Yes, but not at the rate and scale that we are causing species to go extinct. We're essentially the equivalent of a mass-extinction event for most species on the planet.
Furthermore, species in nature tend to be in certain states of equilibrium because every predator is prey for something else. Except humans: we're at the top of the food chain and the only threat we face is from ourselves.
>Furthermore, species in nature tend to be in certain states of equilibrium because every predator is prey for something else.
This is not entirely true, I'll add a new term for your vocabulary: Apex predator [0] There is a reason it is called a "food chain" and not a "food pyramid".
Predators die off because of many reasons. Some are human caused and others aren't. Let's bring a bit of math into this: Lotka-Volterra predator-prey equation [1]
I forget the exact term for population dynamics but "food source goes down, predator population dies off, predator population dying off means more food source survives, more food source means fewer predators die from starvation and the cycle continues". It's possible to reach a point of no return if too much of the prey dies off. This happens, I would like to refer to my wolves example from earlier.
[0] Have a look at the "extant" section in particular. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apex_predators
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation
I think you're a bit too focused on the literal definition of the word "natural," and that's rather pedantic. Yes, we're a part of nature. That doesn't mean our actions are ordinary, or like that of other animals. On the contrary, we're incredibly efficient at everything we do, and the impact we're having on the planet is unprecedented. There has never been a species in the entire history of Earth like us. And since we're so vastly different, it's incorrect to treat what we're doing as "natural."
This is where we are splitting hairs. I find it both unfair and arrogant to argue that it is, somehow, not natural. That humans are somehow above nature.
When the resources we depend on are depleted and become scarce, we'll see population decrease - the same natural limitation placed onto every other species. When the resources (ie. food sources) they depend on deplete. They die off.
This is why "natural power" (eg. wind, solar) is so important. This is why "renewable resources" are so important. This is why figuring out how to recycle materials is important. This is why purifying water is important. This is why getting us off of this planet and into space is so important.
The importance of these things is because our very survival as a species depends on these things.
We are a part of nature. We are subject to the same laws that govern other species. These same laws that cause entire species to go extinct. We are not above these laws. Our very survival as a species depends on recognizing this fact and being fucking terrified of this fact.
E: I feel we're straying a bit.
There are legitimate and scientific reasons for why causing species to go extinct is bad for humans. We lose valuable data and the ability to research and learn from these species to better understand our world.
"Boo hoo, this beautiful species is now extinct" is not a reason I care for.
The argument of "it's unnatural" is also not compelling. Efficiency does not make it unnatural, it makes it efficient.
Humans have the unique ability to notice that animals go extinct, we even have the ability to be gods and decide to bring the species back from extinction or not.
What is lost by losing the NORTHERN White Rhino when the SOUTHERN White Rhino is the same creature, just located in a different area?
Allowing the Northern White Rhino to go temporarily extinct is an amazing ability that ONLY humans have ever had. We can easily bring the species back when we solve the poaching problem. Right now poaching is too expensive to defend against while ensuring a high-quality of life for these animals.
Yes, the poachers will still hunt, but it will be more costly for the poachers and hopefully that will deter them somewhat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_rhinoceros
There's a possibility that the Northern White Rhino animal is very different to the Southern White Rhino animal.
> Following the phylogenetic species concept, recent research has suggested the northern white rhinoceros may be an altogether different species, rather than a subspecies of white rhinoceros, in which case the correct scientific name for the former is Ceratotherium cottoni. Distinct morphological and genetic differences suggest the two proposed species have been separated for at least a million years.[18]
The "should be their own species" argument was primarily brought on to promote the endangered status of the rhinos anyways. http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/05/03/new-speci...
"The danger in making this sort of suggestion, however, is that changing the taxonomy to suit conservation priority could eventually backfire: it would not look good if zoologists were thought to be tweaking their conclusions in order to suit their favoured conservation projects."
Mass extinction events from millions of years ago are not really relevant to discussion about protecting existing endangered species from human exploitation.
I agree that on the large scale we're no less "natural" or "conscious", but surely we can be better than a Meteor or a Supervolcano.
Some say yes; others think perhaps an albino tiger isn't all that pertinent, when we can (soon) create a pink polka-dot tiger that fetches your slippers.