Survival of the fittest?

[Whispersecret]

I read in Time magazine last week this update about some endangered species, and again I wondered, should we go to sometimes outrageous lengths to try to keep certain species from becoming extinct?

For example, I like pandas as much as the next person, but heck, they only eat one type of bamboo, and they have a really poor chance of reproducing when a male and female actually meet. I realize that one of the reasons they're endangered is because their territory is being drastically reduced, and yet...I don't know. I think that sometimes we just have to accept that nature is working. So many times humans have meddled in this type of thing and screwed things up. (YOu know, like introducing non-native animals into areas with disastrous results. Stuff like that.)

Please don't think I'm an animal hater or anything like that. I'm not. I'm not advocating abandoning all efforts to save the pandas, or the whales, or any endangered animal. I just wonder if this is just another example of humans wanting to play God and tamper with a natural process that might be better left alone.

What are people's thoughts on this?

 

[CreamyLady]

I think the reaction to save a species such as the panda, whose habitat is drastically reduced, is caused by the fact that the human species drastically reduced the habitat in the first place.

If I remember my biology correctly, changes in species occur in the short (relatively) gaps between eras, not usually over time. Thus, the eradication of an entire species might actually be natural selection at work.

However, if we have caused the problem, and are accelerating the extinction, maybe we do owe it to our fellow creatures to try and slow it down.

 

[SeXy ReDHeD]

We were talking about this very topic today in one of my classes!!

It was argued that humans do things like save endangered species and section off huge acres of land and label them "National Forests" so that we can say that we have been good humans, that we have helped Mother Earth, and so now we can go destroy the rest of it.

An interesting quote:"A few square miles of something called wilderness will become the sign of failure everywhere."

(Chris Wilson)

 

[Guest]

CreamyLady
However, if we have caused the problem, and are accelerating the extinction, maybe we do owe it to our fellow creatures to try and slow it down.

Spotted Owl anyone?
Evolution happens though millions of year - deforestation takes a few months.
WS, even the fittest creatures are facing extinction because of human involvement. There isn't a species alive that can survive without food and territory - the two things human involvement in an area remove first. Any attempt to save one species is going to fail because that species relies on the ecosystem it exists (it evolved to exist in) in to thrive.

For its native environment a panda is a pretty fit. It can defend itself against many animals; climb trees to escape those it can. It's teeth have adapted to tear open bamboo shoots, an abundant resource in it's native environment. Panda's have trouble reproducing in captivity; again, they tend to do well in their native environment. They don't need to give birth to large batches of children.. the ones they do give birth to tend to survive quite well.

Any creature will fail to be 'fit' if placed in the wrong environment. Lions would not be able to survive were wolves can flourish. There are bears on every continent but Africa, home of the super-predator and super-consumer - it's an omnivore.

Remember, humans are not the fittest species; we have learned to alter our environment to suit our bodies instead of the other way around. Unfortunately we tend to disregard the other animals in that environment while we do so. Most efforts to save 'endangered species' include preserving whole areas of land and not letting humanity tamper with various recourses. Saving the panda also saves a great deal of native life because it's protecting an entire ecosystem.

 

[Slut_boy]

I long for day when I read in a newspaper somewhere that the creature called "Muslim Militant Extremist" is regarded as extinct.

 

[Fallen Angel]

It is a wonder that a small critter that only exists in a very limited habitat can slow down modern civilization. Out here in the drier part of Texas roads, dams, buildings and even the pumping of underground water have been stopped slowed or changed due to endangering the habitat of minnows snakes or other aquatic creatures. I agree with preserving the diversity of the species but if a critter only lives in a small set of springs or along one section of river bed and that is endangered then should we try and save the habitat or the species. I think that saving the species is fine if possible but the enviroment is changing and we can not stop the growth of mankind. There is only so much room on this little ball of dirt and I doubt that we will get humans to quit increasing so saving habitat is a temporary fix at best.

Can you visualize what the world would be like if the population would drop to say one half of what it is now and stabilize? The pressure on the existing habitat would stop or slow way down. We could really do something to help save endangered species. I see little or no future for most unmanaged wildlife with the world going the way it is now.

 

[Slut_boy]

FA, I was thinking about the world and pressure on resources - as you have just mentioned - and that got me on to a theory of homeostasis. Tell me what you think of this.....

Okay well "homeostasis" is an automatic meschanism that all living organisms have 'preprogrammed' in them to restore equilibrium or bablance - right? Now if one took a wholistic view of the world, and treated it as a living organism rather than as a collection of all its parts, then it is possible to see AIDS as a homeostatic mechanism. A way of the world trying to bring herself back into balance so that she can once again sustain her inhabitants on her limited resources.

If we take that view then we see how necessary it is for nature and indeed for man's existence that AIDS be able to work itself out. A cure may only serve to frustrate the purpose of the disease - which has death as its plan to save the species. Farmers cull don't they because they realise how important the balance is.

 

[Jade]

I think the reaction to save a species such as the panda, whose habitat is drastically reduced, is caused by the fact that the human species drastically reduced the habitat in the first place.

If I remember my biology correctly, changes in species occur in the short (relatively) gaps between eras, not usually over time. Thus, the eradication of an entire species might actually be natural selection at work.

However, if we have caused the problem, and are accelerating the extinction, maybe we do owe it to our fellow creatures to try and slow it down.

That was exactly what I was thinking Creamy.


We always try to adjust everything to fit our needs, and eventually it is going to come back and bite us in the ass b/c humans are going to be left with no one to share the planet with!

 

[Xander]

And when that happens Jade.

Homo Sapiens will go extinct as well.

Btw, Good to see you around again Jade

 

[Jade]

Thanks Xanman, and yes that is what would happen.

 

[wolfie69]

My personal opinion

Pandas are a good example of how man causes a species to become endangered. Several others....Bengal Tigers, males hunted for the penis as an aphrodisiac, american bison, hunted to brink of extinction for the "tongue" and "hide", several of the whale types brought to the brink (and a couple are extinct now), wolves who were hunted for a bounty because they killed the occasional cow who was grazing on their hunting territory. There are many many more that could be listed.

OK I think I see a pattern here! An animal gets in the way of human progress...... Blow it away, blast it, tear down its habitat.... after all isn't HUMAN progress the most important thing?

Did you know that out of every 10,000 species that ever lived on earth only 10 out of that 10,000 survive today. and a good share of them dissapeared in the last 2-300 years.

I realize that all building and progress will not stop but we do need to consider carefully what we do.

After all how do we know how important that minnow might be....

Who knows if that plant that only grows in a square mile of woods might hold the key to curing aids or cancer??????

 

[Jade]

Wolfie how old are you.. want to come over?

 

[Aranian]

Where does it benefit us to save a species of animal incapable of surviving the changing conditions of it's habitat?

 

[Jade]

These changing "conditions" are not a result of natural selection or any "normal" change.

They are the results of human greed and expansion. Wolfie explained it pretty well I thought.

 

[wolfie69]

Are we that sure of ourselves????????

Aranian...... get your head out of the sand and look at what is going on around you....If we allow the deforestation of our rain forest and the developement of our wetlands to continue, where do you think we will be in a hundred years? does the term desert planet mean anything?

Animal species are not intended to "adapt" in a matter of days or even in a few years time...

 

[coaster]

poised for extinction

wolfie69, the amazing thing is we call it progress.

swooping gulls grasp their prey
walls of water smash silent sand
man is born only to die!

 

[Whispersecret]

Fallen Angel, I see your point. It sort of seems hopeless if human beings keep multiplying at the current rate and monopolizing more and more of the world's resources. We'd better step up the space program, eh?

CL, of course you're right. I feel stupid for not remembering the length of time it takes for most species to adapt. (ALthought I saw a show on Animal Channel yesterday that talked about some species and their amazing ability to quickly learn behaviors that help it survive.)

Slut_boy, I've had that thought too about AIDS or cancer or what have you being nature's way to keep the population down. I have sometimes wondered if the day ever came when we found a cure for cancer, whether a new incurable disease would pop up.

While you have a point, Jade and Xander, I doubt we would ever decimate every living animal. I'm quite sure we would keep the ones that benefit us. (Cows, chickens, pigs, etc.)

Wolfie, tiger penises, buffalo tongues, and whales aren't good examples of killing for progress. That's just greed, I think. However, you're completely on the nose when you talk about a lot of the damage to animal life is due to human expansion. And I wasn't really talking about deforestation (a whole other can of worms). I have no beef with people trying to slow that down. I was really only asking about animals.

 

[Boner James Boner]

"They've paved paradise and put up a parking lot" Joni Mitchell..We human beings can fuck up a wet dream! Everything was cool with our planet until we came along..

 

[Slut_boy]

Yes, I wonder Whisper. It kinda makes you ask whether it is actually such a good idea to find a way of curbing the AIDS pandemic. Possibly not.

 

[wolfie69]

While you have a point, Jade and Xander, I doubt we would ever decimate every living animal. I'm quite sure we would keep the ones that benefit us. (Cows, chickens, pigs, etc.)

Wolfie, tiger penises, buffalo tongues, and whales aren't good examples of killing for progress. That's just greed, I think. However, you're completely on the nose when you talk about a lot of the damage to animal life is due to human expansion. And I wasn't really talking about deforestation (a whole other can of worms). I have no beef with people trying to slow that down. I was really only asking about animals.

Whisper.... I never said the killing of these animals was for the "progress" of man! I am well aware that it is for greed! other examples... elephants for ivory, rhinos for their horns and so on....

And if you do not think that deforestation has caused many animal groups to become extinct, think again! There is no way, in my mind at least, to separate the two.

HM wewill have tha animals that benifit us.....OK a short ecology course here... ummmm .... there are many animals that "humans" are adverse too.... but those animals play an important roll in how this world functions.....EEEEEKKK BATS!!!! well bats comsume huge amounts of mosquitos... without them its gonna be pretty itchy around here.

SNAKES.... help keep the rodent population at bay... without them the world just might be over run.... Yes but I suppose we could use poisons to help keep them away!! Thats the kind of place I want to be in....NOT!

All animals fit in to a scheme and the function of the earth.

And there are so many more examples of how we destroy not only animal groups but in doing so our ecology suffers greatly

Where do we draw the line folks? Who decides? What is the long term effect of losing these animals? How can we be SO sure of ourselves and so arrogant in these decisions? After all we have done such a great job managing things so far, have we not!!!!!



[Edited by wolfie69 on 10-11-2000 at 07:07 AM]

 

[R Nitelight]

MMMMMMM.... Spotted owl.
Tastes just like chicken.

 

[wolfie69]

Slut boy....... have you ever been close to someone who has died from aids or cancer? If not bite your tongue.

Maybe.... we should use our greater intellect and begin t devise ways of controling the population? I mean in the animal kingdom when overpopulation take hold most species slow down breeding for a time...

 

[Jade]

While you have a point, Jade and Xander, I doubt we would ever decimate every living animal. I'm quite sure we would keep the ones that benefit us. (Cows, chickens, pigs, etc.)

And I wasn't really talking about deforestation (a whole other can of worms). I have no beef with people trying to slow that down. I was really only asking about animals.

If you want to keep breeding all of those animals that "benefit" us (of course you only named animals we eat... what about companion animals for the blind... what about horses we ride... etc.?) ... Anyway, the ironic thing here is that those animals you mentioned DO contribute to deforestation.. b/c it is the same can of worms whether we like or or not.

Also, if we keep losing huge percentages of the world's population... it WILL continue to dwindle and eventually ... well I can only say that... what is 10 percent of nothing?

 

[Jade]

Woops I just read from wolfie69.... *sighs*... I LOVE men that think like that!

 

[wolfie69]

NOw I am blushing Jade.... I never blush.... jeeezzzzzzzz