What's wrong with extinction?

[viscousmemories]

On another thread I asked why we should care whether we drive a particular animal species to extinction since ultimately all species - including humans - will be extinct. Godless Dave responded with:

Species are going extinct far more rapidly than usual, mostly because of human influence on the environment. In the past, mass extinctions have led to global ecological catastrophe. At best, we will run out of the natural resources we enjoy using and find ourselves short of food, building materials, textiles, and medicines. At worst, the catastrophe could bring about climate change that would kill large amounts of humans.

Here is a simpler, but equally valid, argument:

Say you like eating salmon. If salmon go extinct, you won't get to eat them anymore.

I find both arguments persuasive, but I'm interested in other opinions and/or elaborations on either of these.

[Dingfod]

Extrapolating Godless Dave's last remark, the closer to extinction the species get, the more expensive they will become, which may be their salvation. Or not.

[Sonnet]

Human extinction seems just fine to me. It's my disgust with most of my fellows for not being able to care about our effects on other creatures, but only for how things affect US, that makes me feel that way.

[beyelzu]

Human extinction seems just fine to me. It's my disgust with most of my fellows for not being able to care about our effects on other creatures, but only for how things affect US, that makes me feel that way.
well, I find this reasoning pretty specious, as other animals dont give a shit if they destroy another species.

[Dingfod]

You may be interested in the VHEMT (http://www.vhemt.org/).

[beyelzu]

On another thread I asked why we should care whether we drive a particular animal species to extinction since ultimately all species - including humans - will be extinct. Godless Dave responded with:

Species are going extinct far more rapidly than usual, mostly because of human influence on the environment. In the past, mass extinctions have led to global ecological catastrophe. At best, we will run out of the natural resources we enjoy using and find ourselves short of food, building materials, textiles, and medicines. At worst, the catastrophe could bring about climate change that would kill large amounts of humans.

Here is a simpler, but equally valid, argument:

Say you like eating salmon. If salmon go extinct, you won't get to eat them anymore.

I find both arguments persuasive, but I'm interested in other opinions and/or elaborations on either of these.


well, I think that many creatures do obviously impact our health and welfare. Also experiments in biodomes have shown us that it isnt easy to make a simplified ecosystem. I dont think we should destroy the ones we have until we can replace the thing.

[beyelzu]

You may be interested in the VHEMT (http://www.vhemt.org/).
I think those people are extremist dipshits.

I think that people shouldnt have so many children but producing a couple for population renewal isnt such a bad idea.

[Dingfod]

Extremist dipshits? As far I can tell, the movement is as much tongue in cheek as it is serious. They fully realize what they propose isn't realistic. Extremist would be calling for manditory sterilization with selective breeding. I don't think they advocate reproduction at all... or sterilization, unless it is voluntary.

What's wrong with having a declining human population? It would be good for the planet and it would reduce crowding. Dog knows, I hate crowds...


...except for crowds of drunken women at Oktoberfest. hehe

[beyelzu]

Extremist dipshits? As far I can tell, the movement is as much tongue in cheek as it is serious. They fully realize what they propose isn't realistic. Extremist would be calling for manditory sterilization with selective breeding. I don't think they advocate reproduction at all... or sterilization, unless it is voluntary.

What's wrong with having a declining human population? It would be good for the planet and it would reduce crowding. Dog knows, I hate crowds...


...except for crowds of drunken women at Oktoberfest. hehe
well, I dont like any group that has a goal of phasing women out, regardless of the mildness of the point of view.

[viscousmemories]

Y'know I debated putting this in the Science forum 'cause I really am interested in whether there is a naturalistic justification for striving to preserve all species of life. Of course my gut says that preserving species is important, but my gut is often wrong.

Beyelzu, why is it important to preserve the ecosystem as is, though? Thousands of species have become extinct throughout history, right? (Total guess on my part actually) So what makes it so critical that we protect todays ecosystem?

[beyelzu]

Y'know I debated putting this in the Science forum 'cause I really am interested in whether there is a naturalistic justification for striving to preserve all species of life. Of course my gut says that preserving species is important, but my gut is often wrong.

Beyelzu, why is it important to preserve the ecosystem as is, though? Thousands of species have become extinct throughout history, right? (Total guess on my part actually) So what makes it so critical that we protect todays ecosystem?
because if we kill enough shit the long term ramifications could make it very difficult for human life to continue.

[beyelzu]

The vast majority of all species ever existed are currently extinct.

Yet, if I am not mistaken, the disctinction is that currently species are going extinct at an alarming rate. The issue is not that species are going extinct, rather it is the rate that that is happening at.

[viscousmemories]

because if we kill enough shit the long term ramifications could make it very difficult for human life to continue.
That's a good reason not to kill too much shit, but the question is how much shit can you kill before it becomes too much. Do you think the extinction of a single species will necessarily adversely affect humankind? What if we had good reason to believe the opposite was true. That eradicating a particular species might actually prove beneficial in the long run?

[viscousmemories]

The vast majority of all species ever existed are currently extinct.

Yet, if I am not mistaken, the disctinction is that currently species are going extinct at an alarming rate. The issue is not that species are going extinct, rather it is the rate that that is happening at.
Ah, we just cross-posted. That's a very good distinction I didn't catch first time around. I'll have to mull that one over, thanks. :yup:

[beyelzu]

because if we kill enough shit the long term ramifications could make it very difficult for human life to continue.
That's a good reason not to kill too much shit, but the question is how much shit can you kill before it becomes too much. Do you think the extinction of a single species will necessarily adversely affect humankind? What if we had good reason to believe the opposite was true. That eradicating a particular species might actually prove beneficial in the long run?
the problem is that currently we are killing too much shit (I love using scientific terms) so we need to quit killing more species and you can only protect the species one at atime.

By consistently choosing to protect individual species eventually we can get to the point where we arent in an extinction event like we probably are currently.

[beyelzu]

The vast majority of all species ever existed are currently extinct.

Yet, if I am not mistaken, the disctinction is that currently species are going extinct at an alarming rate. The issue is not that species are going extinct, rather it is the rate that that is happening at.
Ah, we just cross-posted. That's a very good distinction I didn't catch first time around. I'll have to mull that one over, thanks. :yup:
and again, prety amusing, wonder how many more times we can crosspost today?

[wade-w]

Y'know I debated putting this in the Science forum 'cause I really am interested in whether there is a naturalistic justification for striving to preserve all species of life. Of course my gut says that preserving species is important, but my gut is often wrong.

Beyelzu, why is it important to preserve the ecosystem as is, though? Thousands of species have become extinct throughout history, right? (Total guess on my part actually) So what makes it so critical that we protect todays ecosystem?

Your guess understates the situation by a lot. I've seen estimates that as many as 98% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct. And every species that is currently extant will become extinct at some time. Also, presrving "todays ecosystem as is" is an utter impossibility. So what's the big deal if one particular species becomes extinct? In the grand scheme of things, not much. But a mass extinction such as we are seeing now, well, that's another thing all together. Of course, this current mass extinction has been going on for far longer than most people realize; it predates our modern industrial society by millenia. However, there is no doubt that we are accelerating the rate of extinctions, and that is, I think, cause for alarm. Knock out enough niches fast enough, and the whole food chain could collapse, which would be disasterous.

I'm sure that The Lone Ranger or pzmeyers can correct any errors I've made here, and provide better explanations, but I think my main point is valid.

[Dingfod]

well, I dont like any group that has a goal of phasing women out, regardless of the mildness of the point of view. :eek:

I guess I better read their site again, it's been a while, maybe someone got ripped off in a divorce settlement or something.

I took a few minutes to search the site and couldn't find anything that specified phasing women out except as men are phased out at the same time. Perhaps you can guide me to where they say that. Uh, nevermind, I know what you want, beyelzu, Bub, you want all the men phased out and to be left with only women, you selfish sumbitch. I had that idea first, dogdammit.


Carbon based units infest Enterprise and Creator, must exterminate (must start with beyelzu unit).--V-ger

[LadyShea]

It seems to me that in any given environment, the inhabitants live in symbiotic balance. So, when one organism in that balance disappears, it has reprecussions on in number of other organisms for who nows how many levels. Can the extinction of a type of bat, that eats mosquitos, that carry West Nile lead to an epidemic with thousands of human deaths? I don't know, but it's not out of the realm of possibility is it?

[Dingfod]

Seems to me that other critters fill the niche. That's what all us living critters do, fill niches. OK, some of us more advanced critters scour niches. Left alone though, those niches will get filled with some critter or another. Pretty neat biosphere we all live in.

In my opinion, the biggest risk to life on earth: radiation from all-out nuclear war or some cosmic disaster. But, if one bacteria survives, a niche will get filled, then another, then more, then it starts all over again.

Gawd, I'm simplistic. Must be my single-celled brain.

[viscousmemories]

I think what Beyelzu and Wade have said makes a lot of sense. It's not the mere fact of driving a species to extinction that's potentially catastrophic, but the effect of doing so on such an inordinately large and rapid scale. And wade's point that the whole food chain might collapse is particularly compelling to me, because I am even more sympathetic to the preservation of all life on Earth than humans alone.

So now I ask: What can I do on a personal level (if anything) to help reduce this effect? Is there an authoritative list of endangered species somewhere with a strong inducement not to consume any specific animal products?

[beyelzu]

well, I dont like any group that has a goal of phasing women out, regardless of the mildness of the point of view. :eek:

I guess I better read their site again, it's been a while, maybe someone got ripped off in a divorce settlement or something.

I took a few minutes to search the site and couldn't find anything that specified phasing women out except as men are phased out at the same time. Perhaps you can guide me to where they say that. Uh, nevermind, I know what you want, beyelzu, Bub, you want all the men phased out and to be left with only women, you selfish sumbitch. I had that idea first, dogdammit.


Carbon based units infest Enterprise and Creator, must exterminate (must start with beyelzu unit).--V-ger


I have no idea why I only typed women, I meant mankind, I guess I had a freudian slip there. but no doubt I do intend to phase out the male units excepting myself. :D

[viscousmemories]

I have no idea why I only typed women, I meant mankind, I guess I had a freudian slip there. but no doubt I do intend to phase out the male units excepting myself. :D
That's funny 'cause I was sure you were just being facetious.

[The Lone Ranger]

Your guess understates the situation by a lot. I've seen estimates that as many as 98% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct.

When you consider the 4-billion-year history of life on earth, it's a near-certainly that 99.9% of species that have ever existed are now extinct. Paleontologists are fond of saying, "To a first approximation, all species are extinct."


Extinction is a fact of life. The problem is that at the moment, it's estimated that the extinction rate is something like a thousand times greater than the "normal" rate, because of human activities. (And if global climate change turns out to be as much of a problem as a lot of people suspect, that's only going to get worse.)

There have been 5 major "mass extinction events" in the history of life that we know of. The last took out the dinosaurs. We're currently in the midst of a 6th, if current trends continue.

Now, it's true that we don't have to worry about wiping out all life or any such thing. If we do enough damage to the earth's ecosystems, we'll almost certainly wind up doing ourselves in in the process. Over the next few million years, biological diversity will reestablish itself.


It's quite correct that this mass extinction event has been going on for some time -- about 30,000 years or so. By an interesting "coincidence," soon after humans moved into an area, most of the large native animals went extinct. Soon after humans came to Australia, a great many of the large native mammals and reptiles went extinct. Soon after humans came to the Americas, a great many of the large mammal species went extinct. Soon after humans came to Madagascar . . . Well, you can see the trend.


Our rapaciousness as a species may well be our downfall.

-- Michael