Priceless or Worthless? Most Threatened Species

[Friendly]

http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/442 ... 44234ae6/2

Must... consume... more!

[BIL]

gg plants and animals

[GaijinPunch]

worthless: the design of the webpage in question.

[Friendly]

It's really a book, not a website. But I agree, it's not very readable online. The readbility is better if you download it in pdf format and use a pdf-reader.

[CMoon]

P. 86-95 are pretty heavy.

There's an isbn for hardback and paperback, though it doesn't seem to exist in any form other than electronic right now.

[Friendly]

See, and that's why up to 130 species become extinct EVERY day (which is 1000% the rate at which it would happen without humans). Because nobody fucking cares.

iPhone 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111 Wooohooo! Larger screen! Faster CPU! New OS!

[Drum]

Thanks for linking this, it's a cool little magazine thing.

- Sent from my oh I can't even finish it

[njiska]

Species go extinct. Man, is bad. Blah, blah, fuckity, blah. Is anything new ever said on the subject? And why is it that other species can cause extinctions, but not us? I mean a few cats wiped out the entire population of the Stephens Island Wren. Natural selection and all. Adapt or die.

(which is 1000% the rate at which it would happen without humans)

Sensationalist much?

[Drum]

The cat (singular - it belonged to the lighthouse keeper) was an introduced animal. Lighthouse keepers' cats are not native to small New Zealand islands. Also, there used to be lots of Stephen's Island Wrens all over the south island of NZ - only they were wiped out by people. They were called Stephen's Island Wrens because by the time somebody thought about giving them a name that was the only place you could find them. You worthless fucking shitlord.

[njiska]

The cat (singular - it belonged to the lighthouse keeper) was an introduced animal. Lighthouse keepers' cats are not native to small New Zealand islands. Also, there used to be lots of Stephen's Island Wrens all over the south island of NZ - only they were wiped out by people. They were called Stephen's Island Wrens because by the time somebody thought about giving them a name that was the only place you could find them. You worthless fucking shitlord.

Actually, it was not a single cat. That was widely believed to be true, but there were several more bodies discovered years later, by which point the island was home to several feral cats. And yeah, they were introduced animals. Animals get introduced to new locations all the time and not just by man. Welcome to nature.

And thanks for calling me a worthless fucking shitlord. Taking such a high road there.

[CMoon]

Yeah, but Drum's right (not about the 'worthless fucking shitlord' as far as I know) that the reason for extinctions like that is because people moved a species somewhere it had never been, and resident species had no adaptations for dealing with it.

Can you have invasive species without people involved? Yes, of course. Do other species than humans cause extinction? Again, yes they do. The issue is one of magnitude. Current rates of extinction are the same now as they were during the K-T event when the dinosaurs were wiped out, and it is for a very obvious reason--we've changed various aspects of the environment too rapidly for other species to adapt to these changes. Knowing about the problem is great, but how do you tell 7 billion people 'No'?

[Friendly]

(which is 1000% the rate at which it would happen without humans)

Sensationalist much?

More significantly the rate of species extinctions at present is estimated at 100 to 1000 times "background" or average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth

[J.H.Lawton and R.M.May, Extinction rates, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK]

Species go extinct. Man, is bad. Blah, blah, fuckity, blah. Is anything new ever said on the subject? And why is it that other species can cause extinctions, but not us? I mean a few cats wiped out the entire population of the Stephens Island Wren. Natural selection and all. Adapt or die.

Oh wow. And who's the one introducing species into habitats where they don't belong? Yeah, I think you should better not contribute any more of your wisdom.

[njiska]

Here's my issue with the whole debate. 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. 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? Saying every species has a right to life is a great concept, but it's also complete bullshit. Species have a right to go extinct and sometimes they need to. It's part of the natural balance.

Ask the kind of people who wrote that book and I'm sure they're all for saving pretty Tigers and birds, maybe even some insects too, 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.

Ultimately my argument comes down to this. Is the loss of these species really a problem? I know that's kind of cold, but that's the hard truth of the matter. Even if species die at a greater rate, is there really any different impact than if they died off slower? The earth is still plenty bio-diverse and our overall biomass isn't dropping.

[MX7]

Reading a Nijiska post is like grinding your brain against a brick wall.

[njiska]

Reading a Nijiska post is like grinding your brain against a brick wall.

Not a fan of logic over emotion? Every debate needs at least one critical mind on the other side.

(which is 1000% the rate at which it would happen without humans)

Sensationalist much?

More significantly the rate of species extinctions at present is estimated at 100 to 1000 times "background" or average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth

[J.H.Lawton and R.M.May, Extinction rates, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK]

Yep, sensationalist.

A: You choose to take the 10 fold higher end of the spectrum in the very line of text you quoted.
B: The accuracy of determining "Background" Extinction is highly debatable as we have never known the total number of species alive or dead at any given point and the number alive is just as important as the number dead to determine rates.

[MX7]

I'm not a fan of a racist, gun nut brony puking his odious and uninformed arguments over every thread that comes up.

[njiska]

I'm not a fan of a racist, gun nut brony puking his odious and uninformed arguments over every thread that comes up.

Haha, yeah, because that's really such and appropriate way to counter any argument.

Me: "I think this"
You: "You are a cunt"

If my arguments are so uninformed than just prove them wrong with logic and reasoning. Inform me, but back it up with fact. Not that anyone in an internet debate ever does.

[Drum]

I'm not a fan of a racist, gun nut brony puking his odious and uninformed arguments over every thread that comes up.

He's also a pederast. Presumably.

[njiska]

I'm not a fan of a racist, gun nut brony puking his odious and uninformed arguments over every thread that comes up.

He's also a pederast. Presumably.

No, I'm not Ancient Greek enough for that.

[hzt]

Ultimately my argument comes down to this. Is the loss of these species really a problem? I know that's kind of cold, but that's the hard truth of the matter. Even if species die at a greater rate, is there really any different impact than if they died off slower? The earth is still plenty bio-diverse and our overall biomass isn't dropping.

but you'd be mad if ponies went extinct right???????

[njiska]

Ultimately my argument comes down to this. Is the loss of these species really a problem? I know that's kind of cold, but that's the hard truth of the matter. Even if species die at a greater rate, is there really any different impact than if they died off slower? The earth is still plenty bio-diverse and our overall biomass isn't dropping.

but you'd be mad if ponies went extinct right???????

I'd probably be mad if a lot of species I liked went extinct, but being mad has NOTHING to do with the impact the loss of a particular species has on the planet, nor if it was that species time. Take tigers for example. I love tigers and I really don't think we should be hunting them to extinction. However I do think it's perfectly acceptable to kill one to save your own life and if it came to a point where the option was exterminate a band of tigers or let a village die, then I'm sorry but the tigers have to go. As I said earlier, "...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 am not about to join up with the groups that think man should die off or suffer so that we can be more fair to the rest of nature.

I do realize that my motivation for keeping the Tigers alive is almost entirely selfish. As is my desire to commit mass acts of genocide on numerous viruses. Nature is still ultimately nature and we are a part of it. Species will die off, even the ones we like and not every species need to be preserved.

[Acid King]

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.

Knowing about the problem is great, but how do you tell 7 billion people 'No'?

Worldwide totalitarianism?

[trap15]

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.

Knowing about the problem is great, but how do you tell 7 billion people 'No'?

Worldwide totalitarianism?

Single greatest post in the history of this forum. I love you

[Op Intensify]

(post invalidated)

[njiska]

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.

[Op Intensify]

You got me, I tried to overhype the issue while displaying my own horticultural ignorance and failing to mention the importance of other species in pollination. I respectfully withdraw from the argument.

Ultimately I believe there's nothing we can do to preserve any of these species outside of captivity for more than a handful of extra years without completely abolishing the global industrial complex, which no government is ever going to do, so it's all rather pointless anyway.

[njiska]

You got me, I tried to overhype the issue while displaying my own agricultural ignorance and failing to mention the importance of other species in pollination. I respectfully withdraw from the argument.

Ultimately I believe there's nothing we can do to preserve any of these species for more than a handful of extra years without completely abolishing the global industrial complex, which no government is ever going to take part in, so it's all rather pointless anyway.

I wouldn't exactly say you displayed ignorance. Your concern is still quite valid, it's just not apocalyptic. And I'm actually pretty much with you that there's little we can do to prolong most species for extended periods, but nature has a surprisingly good ability to adapt and balance out to these changes. Hell there are even a few species that a solely alive today because of man's intervention, like the avocado. It's reproduction cycle is dependent on large mammals that no longer exist. If man didn't find them tasty, they'd be extinct now.

[hzt]

So I just read they found a new monkey in DR Congo, so if one of the monkeys off that site goes extinct we still come out even right? And I mean science is pretty crazy these days even if we can't find more animals can't we just invent some new ones if others die out?

[Friendly]

This "I can't do anything anyway"-attitude is total bullshit. Of course you can. Just one simple example: Do you take your own re-usable bag when you go shopping?

[Illyrian]

We can always stick 2 random animals together and see what happens.