Priceless or Worthless? Most Threatened Species

[Ed Oscuro]

The amount of power required to push that website through my GPU just made 15 adorable fat-lipped monkeys go extinct.

p.s. Zero Growth or Bust!

[BulletMagnet]

Oh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing?! Well I say, hard cheese.

Acid King's true identity is finally revealed: Stephen Colbert posts among us!

[Hagane]

but what about Polio? It's a species just like any other and we've gone out of our way to exterminate it. Same goes for Small Pox and Reinderpest. What makes one species worth saving and another worth completely annihilating? If anyone can offer a valid, logical solution to that question, I'll be impressed.

Main difference being that those were a direct threat to our survival, while most animals aren't.

[Drum]

Consider this, njiska.

Many kinds of honeybees are becoming threatened or endangered species, thanks to pesticides and shitty beekeepers' lack of care for them. The British black honeybee very nearly went extinct a few years ago, and was only saved thanks to conservation efforts.

If bees go extinct, plants won't get pollinated (unless we manage to develop cheap, mass-produced nanobots to serve the same purpose, but I'm not holding my breath.)

That is actually a very good point, Op and I appreciate you trying to engage me in a fair discussion, rather than just attacking me directly. I respect that, so allow me to offer a respectful rebuttal.

I am aware of the issue of the decline of Honeybees, especially feral bees, as well as the 1980 Bees Act in the UK to protect species from decline. I am also aware that a large part of the decline of Bees is not the intervention of man, but the prevalence of disease and parasites like Varroa. That's not to say that man isn't having still a contributing factor, and a large one at that, but that even without man there would still be large problems with bee survival. I also acknowledge that the decline of bees would be a definite problem, but they are not the sole pollinator in the animal kingdom and the cows would not be munching on barren earth without them. Butterflies, Moths, Humming Birds, etc.; pretty much anything that touches a plant will transfer pollen and depending on the climate, may be the primary pollinator. It's also worth noting that corn and wheat both self-pollinate, while bananas are commonly pollinated by birds, not bees. Which brings me to the heart of my issue.

If the implications of the statement were, "If we do not protect the bees, than we may see a significant change in the ability to grow certain crops", then I would have no problem at all, because that is both a truthful statement and a good reason to look at the issue and make appropriate, thought out, but not radical, changes to address it.

Your statement, however, implies that if we don't protect the bees than everything will die and we'll have nothing but barren earth, and that, to me, is sensationalizing the matter. At which point the issue becomes almost cartoonish and much harder to believe/care about.

Varoa has been spread around the world by humans as part of the bee farming industry.
Other organisms will step up to fill niches, of course - that's evolution - but it can take thousands or millions of years and the consequences can be pretty severe. For us. Bees going extinct would be catastrophic - but that doesn't suggest the world will end.
There are plenty of bronies on the internet that could fill your place if we killed you and used you as fertiliser, but it would still be wrong to do it, or to let it happen.

[Drum]

but what about Polio? It's a species just like any other and we've gone out of our way to exterminate it. Same goes for Small Pox and Reinderpest. What makes one species worth saving and another worth completely annihilating? If anyone can offer a valid, logical solution to that question, I'll be impressed.

Main difference being that those were a direct threat to our survival, while most animals aren't.

Yeah, he's just being stupid. He seems to be under the delusion that unless you're some cartoon strawman environmentalist omegahippie or a sociopath with his cock covered in panda blood, you aren't being logical. That's because, like a lot of simpletons, njiska has mistaken logic for dogma - nuance and qualifiers are seen as weakness. There are bigger problems here than the peculiarities of the conservation argument, and that's why I will continue to dismiss him as a dope - I don't have time or inclination to give him a formal lesson in logic and debate.

[njiska]

Varoa has been spread around the world by humans as part of the bee farming industry.

Yes, because everything we do is wrong.

Look, Varroa is a major concern for honey bees, regardless of how it has spread over the years. Has bee farming been a contributor to the spread? Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the mites would be a problem regardless. Nor does it take into account that that same industry is putting in a lot of effort to stop the mite problem with controlled importation and genetic engineering. And as for the pollinator decline that has suddenly become the hot topic in this thread, there are zero studies quantifying the affect of the loss of honey bees as a species. We do know they're an important part of pollination, but not how important or how easily they'd be replaced. In the western hemisphere, for example, the Honey Bee is actually an invasive species. If they were to die off there's a very strong possibility that the Bee species they've been forcing out would return and fill the pollination gap.

Yeah, he's just being stupid. He seems to be under the delusion that unless you're some cartoon strawman environmentalist omegahippie or a sociopath with his cock covered in panda blood, you aren't being logical. That's because, like a lot of simpletons, njiska has mistaken logic for dogma - nuance and qualifiers are seen as weakness. There are bigger problems here than the peculiarities of the conservation argument, and that's why I will continue to dismiss him as a dope - I don't have time or inclination to give him a formal lesson in logic and debate.

Yep, keep telling yourself that.

[CMoon]

But, how many of the species that we are wiping out are really important and who has the right to say which deserve to live and which deserve to die?

This is the question every person has to answer for themselves. I'm not going to yell at you like other posters since you're setting yourself up here for a flamewar, but rather I'd say your question should cause pause. It is in fact the same question this publication is asking.

My only counter would be, that if you are not 100% sure of what the answer is, it might be best to look before you leap. When these species (and the environments we are so rapidly changing) are gone, we cannot bring them back. Is it wise to make wholesale changes to our landscape and biosphere if we are not 100% certain that in fact what we are throwing away is useless?

Edit: As a side note, if you are 100% certain that we no longer need these species, I think you should make it your personal endeavor to eat each and every one of these species before they go extinct. I'd be happy to be involved in the graphic design/publication of your one-person gastronomical genocide.

[njiska]

But, how many of the species that we are wiping out are really important and who has the right to say which deserve to live and which deserve to die?

This is the question every person has to answer for themselves. I'm not going to yell at you like other posters since you're setting yourself up here for a flamewar, but rather I'd say you're question should cause pause. It is in fact the same question this publication is asking.

My only counter would be, that if you are not 100% sure of what the answer is, it might be best to look before you leap. When these species (and the environments we are so rapidly changing) are gone, we cannot bring them back. Is it wise to make wholesale changes to our landscape and biosphere if we are not 100% certain that in fact what we are throwing away is useless?

Look, CMoon, I actually agree with you. You are correct that we shouldn't be changing ecosystems without being 100% sure, but the fact of the matter is that we can never really be 100% sure and it's not practical in all situations to do nothing if we're not 100% sure. Every action has reactions and while we can make predictions, it's impossible to see ever facet of change until the deed has been done. We cannot exist without interacting with the world around us and sometimes that will mean difficult choices that have to be made that may have other consequences down the road. This goes for both keeping species alive and intentionally wiping them out. It's easy to place blame after the fact, but not so easy before something has begun

The actual question, "who has the right to say which deserve to live and which deserve to die?", does give me pause because I don't think it's a question that can be easily answered.

The real problem I have though, isn't with awareness of these facts, but the way the arguments are presented. Far, far too often do I see people using sensationalist, fear mongering statements being used to encourage poor policy decisions and every time a different point of view is brought up the solution is to attack the person, not actually discuss the issue. Which is exactly what drum has been doing here. No matter what people think, the world isn't going to end tomorrow if we take some time to review the situation and think through the best resolutions.

[Drum]

But, how many of the species that we are wiping out are really important and who has the right to say which deserve to live and which deserve to die?

This is the question every person has to answer for themselves. I'm not going to yell at you like other posters since you're setting yourself up here for a flamewar, but rather I'd say you're question should cause pause. It is in fact the same question this publication is asking.

My only counter would be, that if you are not 100% sure of what the answer is, it might be best to look before you leap. When these species (and the environments we are so rapidly changing) are gone, we cannot bring them back. Is it wise to make wholesale changes to our landscape and biosphere if we are not 100% certain that in fact what we are throwing away is useless?

Edit: As a side note, if you are 100% certain that we no longer need these species, I think you should make it your personal endeavor to eat each and every one of these species before they go extinct. I'd be happy to be involved in the graphic design/publication of your one-person gastronomical genocide.

And the hidden missing part of the question is: Important for what? Everything's important in the sense that once it's gone, it's gone forever. What is njiska smuggling in here? Important for humanity's survival? Important in the sense that it disappearing will result in a major catastrophe? Well, it can't be that second one because he's already confidently asserted that the world would bounce back from a honeybee cataclysm without any problems worth his bringing up (despite having an extraordinarily thin understanding of ecology). He said nobody can judge whether a species should live or die - and said in the next breath that he thinks extinction, including human-driven extinction, is part of the natural balance - so apparently he thinks he can judge. He's not even internally consistent. I agree with you - preservation is just the pragmatic solution when the alternative is localised annihilation. Keep things around, study them, and learn. If nothing else, there's that. Every species on earth, including ones not yet here, can benefit from that. There are genuine borderline cases - I've heard of a distinct variety of shorebird breeding itself out of existence with a similar, but also distinct shorebird - cases like that it might be best to let nature just take it's course. But when else?

[trap15]

Only worthwhile comment I have to post here is that part of the reason that all this eco-shit is never taken seriously is because of the sensationalist bullshit that comes from that side. No one takes it seriously anymore because every time something is slightly endangered, it's "OH MY GOD, IF THIS ANIMAL DIES THE ENTIRE PLANET IS GOING TO IMPLODE WE HAVE TO SAVE IT", and I get the feeling that the generic public is sick of the same old overblown shit.

Also, I'd like to say to njiska that I completely agree with your stance and I don't think you deserve the stupid ridicule you've been getting here. Especially the completely uncalled for personal attacks.

[Drum]

But, how many of the species that we are wiping out are really important and who has the right to say which deserve to live and which deserve to die?

This is the question every person has to answer for themselves. I'm not going to yell at you like other posters since you're setting yourself up here for a flamewar, but rather I'd say you're question should cause pause. It is in fact the same question this publication is asking.

My only counter would be, that if you are not 100% sure of what the answer is, it might be best to look before you leap. When these species (and the environments we are so rapidly changing) are gone, we cannot bring them back. Is it wise to make wholesale changes to our landscape and biosphere if we are not 100% certain that in fact what we are throwing away is useless?

Look, CMoon, I actually agree with you. You are correct that we shouldn't be changing ecosystems without being 100% sure, but the fact of the matter is that we can never really be 100% sure and it's not practical in all situations to do nothing if we're not 100% sure. Every action has reactions and while we can make predictions, it's impossible to see ever facet of change until the deed has been done. We cannot exist without interacting with the world around us and sometimes that will mean difficult choices that have to be made that may have other consequences down the road. This goes for both keeping species alive and intentionally wiping them out. It's easy to place blame after the fact, but not so easy before something has begun

The actual question, "who has the right to say which deserve to live and which deserve to die?", does give me pause because I don't think it's a question that can be easily answered.

The real problem I have though, isn't with awareness of these facts, but the way the arguments are presented. Far, far too often do I see people using sensationalist, fear mongering statements being used to encourage poor policy decisions and every time a different point of view is brought up the solution is to attack the person, not actually discuss the issue. Which is exactly what drum has been doing here. No matter what people think, the world isn't going to end tomorrow if we take some time to review the situation and think through the best resolutions.

So it looks like you've totally capitulated, conceding every significant point, and are now into 'it's not what you say, it's how you say it' territory. I'm ok with that, honestly. I certainly was rude - but that's because I think you've been dishonest. Perhaps you will come to understand why I think that.

[Hagane]

Yeah, he's just being stupid. He seems to be under the delusion that unless you're some cartoon strawman environmentalist omegahippie or a sociopath with his cock covered in panda blood, you aren't being logical. That's because, like a lot of simpletons, njiska has mistaken logic for dogma - nuance and qualifiers are seen as weakness. There are bigger problems here than the peculiarities of the conservation argument, and that's why I will continue to dismiss him as a dope - I don't have time or inclination to give him a formal lesson in logic and debate.

Yep, keep telling yourself that.

So, what about my response to your post?

[Drum]

Only worthwhile comment I have to post here is that part of the reason that all this eco-shit is never taken seriously is because of the sensationalist bullshit that comes from that side. No one takes it seriously anymore because every time something is slightly endangered, it's "OH MY GOD, IF THIS ANIMAL DIES THE ENTIRE PLANET IS GOING TO IMPLODE WE HAVE TO SAVE IT", and I get the feeling that the generic public is sick of the same old overblown shit.

Also, I'd like to say to njiska that I completely agree with your stance and I don't think you deserve the stupid ridicule you've been getting here. Especially the completely uncalled for personal attacks.

This is a hilarious thing to say after njiska completely conceded the argument (whether he knows it or not).

[njiska]

So it looks like you've totally capitulated, conceding every significant point, and are now into 'it's not what you say, it's how you say it' territory. I'm ok with that, honestly. I certainly was rude - but that's because I think you've been dishonest. Perhaps you will come to understand why I think that.

I haven't conceded anything. This is no different than the statement I made in my third post.

"I don't have a problem with acknowledging that mankind is causing the extinction of a number of species, nor do I doubt that there are things we can do to decrease that number. If they can be done without a major impact to our quality of life, then go for it."

I still don't think I can judge, but I accept realities. I also think it's about time this thread had a lock on it as it's clearly going to go nowhere positive from here.

Also, I'd like to say to njiska that I completely agree with your stance and I don't think you deserve the stupid ridicule you've been getting here. Especially the completely uncalled for personal attacks.

Thanks trap. I know you and I have had quarrels before, but I genuinely appreciate your sympathy.

[Drum]

So it looks like you've totally capitulated, conceding every significant point, and are now into 'it's not what you say, it's how you say it' territory. I'm ok with that, honestly. I certainly was rude - but that's because I think you've been dishonest. Perhaps you will come to understand why I think that.

I haven't conceded anything. This is no different than the statement I made in my third post.

"I don't have a problem with acknowledging that mankind is causing the extinction of a number of species, nor do I doubt that there are things we can do to decrease that number. If they can be done without a major impact to our quality of life, then go for it."

Yes you have, you just didn't announce it. You were given the answer to the issue you raised - that preservation is, on the whole, the safest bet - and you let it be. That's something different from what you said in your third post, which said it's nice to preserve species, but not at a 'major' cost. 'Nice but optional, and conditionally' is not 'best bet among many uncertainties'. Surely you can see this is not just splitting hairs.

[Drum]

Thanks trap. I know you and I have had quarrels before, but I genuinely appreciate your sympathy.

A touching moment - but some of us remember that you were the one that came in with the initial inflammatory post, that you later backed down from only after I called you a shitlord. I could tell that you were a bit ruffled by Friendly's moralising - but so was I, as you can tell from my response to it. It's easy to look innocent after somebody decides to escalate - but some of us have better memories.

[njiska]

Thanks trap. I know you and I have had quarrels before, but I genuinely appreciate your sympathy.

A touching moment - but some of us remember that you were the one that came in with the initial inflammatory post, that you later backed down from only after I called you a shitlord.

I've said my piece here and I'm basically done. You'll probably interrupt me being disinterested in continuing to argue with a brick wall as a sign of your victory and if that helps you sleep at night, great; but as far as I'm concerned I took the high road, I stood by and argued my points without resulting to childish insults, name calling or accusations of pederasty, so I'm happy.

[CMoon]

The real problem I have though, isn't with awareness of these facts, but the way the arguments are presented.

You can thank media for that. IMO, organizations like the IUCN and WWF are out there trying to protect something that doesn't have an immediate monetary value. But this isn't a foreign argument. At least in the United States, the notion that there exist things with no immediate value but that should be preserved for all people, and for posterity, is symbolized best in our great national parks.

I think it is easy to become reactionary to media, and unfortunately politics has turned every man against his brother (are the desires of republican and democrat working people really so different?) Now days everyone has a reactionary opinion about everything but people know far less than they should about most things--certainly not enough to really have an opinion.

If you're upset at the way media has turned everyone against each other, with a wicked skew no less, than join the crowd, but I wouldn't make biodiversity a victim of that equation. We know that lacking awareness, humans will always fall into the same 'tragedy of the commons' pattern, and this world will be a more biologically impoverished world for our children and grand children than it was for us. What science can't do is tell you that this is a bad thing. You're alone in making that decision for yourself.

But maybe at least science is wise enough to throw a bit of caution out there, and I don't mean immediately relevant things like cancer cures in the rainforest, but rather the notion that for hundreds of millions of years you have organisms evolving side by side, and these often create enormously complex, interlinking cascades of interdependent systems. We directly receive billions of dollars of free services from those systems, and it is impossible to know always how one aspect will effect another. That's still more immediate though than what I was thinking.

Somehow, somewhere, I'm still attached to the national park idea. I grew up as a boy scout with the idea of leaving things better than the way you left it. I also grew up as a camper and a lover of wildlife. I'm not sure I believe people can go on without nature and be the same thing we were before (there's a thought running back to Loren Eiseley here, but I digress). Working with intercity kids, I often feel they are impoverished, not just from a lack of money but from a lack of nature. At 40, I'm really glad to have hiked all the places I have and seen as much wildlife as I have, because I am not really convinced it will all be here in another 40 years--and that's not something I can put money on, or show you why it is important. I also can't defend the great literary, music, or visual arts. They might be worthless. If a tiny minority of corporate heads can convince you with their media that other species aren't worth protecting, or that biodiversity is a dispensable commodity we're better rid of, then by all means throw it away.

[Drum]

Thanks trap. I know you and I have had quarrels before, but I genuinely appreciate your sympathy.

A touching moment - but some of us remember that you were the one that came in with the initial inflammatory post, that you later backed down from only after I called you a shitlord.

I've said my piece here and I'm basically done. You'll probably interrupt me being disinterested in continuing to argue with a brick wall as a sign of your victory and if that helps you sleep at night, great; but as far as I'm concerned I took the high road, I stood by and argued my points without resulting to childish insults, name calling or accusations of pederasty, so I'm happy.

Well off you go then. I won't take the trouble of quoting your original post, which takes quite a different stance and tone than your subsequent posts. You don't have a bone of decency or integrity in your body. Fortunately for you there will always be people with little patience for that sort of bullshit, so you will forever be able to convince yourself that you're just a victim beset upon from all sides.
I won't apologise to you, but I will to the people who made a real effort without resorting to insults: CMoon, Hagane and more. They have the sense to see what I didn't - that miscreants like you can dish it out but can't take it, and so moderated themselves accordingly. My error of judgement.

[drauch]

This is (endangered) weasels.

[CMoon]

This is (endangered) weasels.

Only if (endangered) weasels can rip my flesh.

[drauch]

Oh, shit! That movie! I always forget that exists. I think I've still got that somewhere.

[CMoon]

Oh, shit! That movie! I always forget that exists. I think I've still got that somewhere.

Man, I was thinking of the Frank Zappa album...who of course would have shit all over this thread. What's the movie like?

[drauch]

Oh yeah, I forgot it was a Zappa album. Never really got into him, so it really didn't register. The film was okay as I recall. Realllly low budget horror, but quite impressive for the special effects since the director/actor/everything was only 17 (or younger) if I remember correctly. Went on to make Invasion of the Blood Farmers, which I never did see.

[Friendly]

Invasion of the Blood Framers is by someone else. After 'Weasels Rip My Flesh' (1979) Nathan Schiff went on to create 'The Long Island Cannibal Massacre' in 1980. (And no, I didn't know this, I looked it up).

[drauch]

Ah, shit, I meant They Don't Cut the Grass Anymore. You know, that other movie about crazy farmers.

[Friendly]

Sounds epic. Current imdb rating of 3.8

[CMoon]

Wait, there is a 'crazy farmer' genre?

[Friendly]

Maybe you can lump it together with the crazy incestuous mutated redneck/hillbilly genre.