• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why care about extinction?

Dustin Kesselberg

Illuminator
Joined
Nov 30, 2004
Messages
4,669
Extinction is a bad thing. Especially extinction caused by humans. Many people don't seem to understand this and I hope to provide just a few reasons to care.

What many don't seem to be understanding is that all life on earth is part of the global ecosystem. This means that every single species has evolved to be part of a fragile chain of other species. If one species goes extinct it can cause many other species to go extinct which in turn can cause many other species to go extinct. Humans, being part of that chain, have an invested interest in the well being of all species, even the ones that don't seem to make much of a difference. Scientists can't predict how the extinction of a single species will affect the entire ecosystem let alone the extinction of hundreds or thousands of species. This has effects for all humans in every way imaginable. If humans care about the existence of their species then they should care about the extinction of any species.

Another important reason is the fact that many of our medicines are derived from natural products including numerous plant species. Who remembers the story of Penicillin? Penicillin was one of the most widely used antibiotic agents. It is derived from the Penicillium mold and was accidentally discovered 1920's. Imagine how many people would have died if this specific Penicillium mold had somehow gone extinct centuries earlier? This story attests to the fact that preservation of species, any species is of the utmost importance. We currently simply don't know which DNA of which species might be able to be used in the future to cure any number of diseases, cancer for instance. It could be that in the near future we will discover a method of using the DNA from some obscure jelly fish to breast cancer. But unfortunately that Jelly Fish might of went extinct because we didn't think it could of been of any use. A potential cancer fighting drug derived from some obscure amazonian plant could be going extinct as we speak!

More reasons to care about extinction of species is simply the fact that we want future generations to be able to observe their beauty directly, and not just from a text book. How tragic would it be for your offspring to blame your generation for not being able to witness first hand, many species that are currently going extinct? I for one, would of loved to of seen the Dodo bird or the Thylacine, or even the recently extinct Chinese river dolphin.

These are just a few of the many reasons to be concerned about extinction, especially potential mass extinction. People who don't care about mass extinction are generally uneducated about the science concerning extinction or simply realize that they will be dead before they notice the effects of it and simply don't care. Either way, anyone with any sense is worried about extinction of any animal let alone mass extinction. Scientists simply aren't able to "clone" extinct species and likely will never be able to due to the fact that many recently extinct species in the past 500 years, their DNA is simply too degraded to be of any use. The Dodo for instance will never be cloned. It's gone, forever. This is why it's so important for us to be concerned about extinction. Once they are gone, They're gone for good.
 

Most human populations currently don't play a beneficial role in the global ecosystem or local for that matter. They simply exploit the ecosystem to their advantage and don't care if they harm or destroy it. Humans are not part of their historical niche in the ecosystem anymore.
 
Good one, Dustin. As far as I am aware, those are the three "hard" reasons in favour of preservation of biodiversity - demand value (goods and services derived), option value (goods and services hypothesized), and aesthetic value.

On the other hand, note that these three are all very anthropocentric, necessarily. Should necessity and consensus dictate, we are happy to eradicate. The polio virus e.g. is fondly hoped to snuff it for eternity sometime soon, and nobody will shed a tear for it, considering the price for keeping it around.

Arguments for intrinsic value of biodiversity can be made, but invariably bog down in fundamental questions, a.k.a. "If there's a value and nobody is around to appreciate it, does it make a sound?" :D

floyt
 
Good one, Dustin. As far as I am aware, those are the three "hard" reasons in favour of preservation of biodiversity - demand value (goods and services derived), option value (goods and services hypothesized), and aesthetic value.

On the other hand, note that these three are all very anthropocentric, necessarily. Should necessity and consensus dictate, we are happy to eradicate. The polio virus e.g. is fondly hoped to snuff it for eternity sometime soon, and nobody will shed a tear for it, considering the price for keeping it around.

Arguments for intrinsic value of biodiversity can be made, but invariably bog down in fundamental questions, a.k.a. "If there's a value and nobody is around to appreciate it, does it make a sound?" :D

floyt


I don't believe scientists should totally eradicate the polio virus simply because we might find beneficial uses for it in the future. Unless we can reproduce it somehow, I don't know why we can't keep it alive in the lab for future experiments.

Also, Yes, It's true that some of these arguments would be of little value if humans weren't around to appreciate the, but the fact is, humans are around to appreciate them. So I don't really know how important it is to argue against them on the basis that they would be of no importance of humans weren't around when humans are around and it's in our best interest to keep it that way.
 
Most human populations currently don't play a beneficial role in the global ecosystem or local for that matter.

Tell that to pidgins , field mice, foxes, rats, crows, seagulls etc..
 
I don't believe scientists should totally eradicate the polio virus simply because we might find beneficial uses for it in the future. Unless we can reproduce it somehow, I don't know why we can't keep it alive in the lab for future experiments.

I suppose that is what will happen, eventually. (Viruses are probably a bit different from other possible extinction victims because you can just crystallize and store the buggers.) The argument is more along the lines of, if there was no way to preserve a sample and the opportunity to eradicate the virus offered itself, we'd go for it regardless. Because we do think in trade-offs; it's just that with biodiversity, in most cases the trade-off has the appearance of not-immediately-evident vs don't-care, and is not nearly as clear-cut.

Also, Yes, It's true that some of these arguments would be of little value if humans weren't around to appreciate the, but the fact is, humans are around to appreciate them. So I don't really know how important it is to argue against them on the basis that they would be of no importance of humans weren't around when humans are around and it's in our best interest to keep it that way.

It's too foggy a point to base an argument on it, I'd agree. Interesting to contemplate though, because it touches the basis of how we assign values. Pare it right down to essentials, and you end up asking the question "Why do we care about our species' survival?" (and hence about factors that influence it, like benefits derived from biodiversity). Genetical imperative or rational reasons? The latter case is surprisingly hard to argue.
 
It's bad period. We can deal with mosquito populations without driving them to extinction.

Humour, Dustin,

Dustin this is humour

Hope you two get along.


You do take things very seriously....
 
lol

lighten up dustin :)
He has a point, though. I mean, I'm all for not taking myself, or most things, too seriously, but this is a serious issue. Personally I can't think of much that's more serious than extintion, particularly mass extinction. But I have no time to get in to this because I haven't eaten anything but a few oranges all day and I'm starving!
 
I feel really bad about all this extinction stuff.
I always wanted to have a T-Rex as a pet.
It could hunt all the neighbor's dogs that bark at night.
Once the dogs are all gone it could hunt the neighbors who blast their stereos.
 
I don't believe scientists should totally eradicate the polio virus simply because we might find beneficial uses for it in the future.

Keep a psychotic mass murderer alive in case it becomes rehabilitated? I don't buy the argument for humans or other animals, and I don't buy it for viruses and bacteria. You want to change my opinion? Give me something besides opinion and pure speculation.

There's no other way to take them.

Keep it up, and you'll die early and alone. Take that seriously.
 
Last edited:
Tell that to pidgins , field mice, foxes, rats, crows, seagulls etc..

Lets look at this in reverse as well. Look at the species which have benefited from humans.

Take for example domesticated livestock. Becoming useful to another more powerful species caused humans to be ensure their survival. Look at how many wild sheep there are compared to domesticated.

So I would say more species have benefited from man than have directly become extinct due to man related actions.

And as species become more and more specialized, they open themselves up to extinction. Which perhaps is why all species will eventually be replaced
 
Last edited:
Paleontologist David Raup (1991) estimates that 99.9% of all the species that have existed have gone extinct.

Extinction is a vital and important part of the ecosystem. It is part of nature. Without extinction or mass extinction events of the past, Man would not have evolved. A lot of animals you recognize and want to preserve would not exist. In the last 600 million years there have been anywhere from 5 to 20 mass extinctions. They are normal, and not our fault.
Mass extinctions have sometimes accelerated the evolution of life on earth. When dominance of particular ecological niches passes from one group of organisms to another, it is rarely because the new dominant group is "superior" to the old and usually because an extinction event eliminates the old dominant group and makes way for the new one.
For example mammaliformes ("almost mammals") and then mammals existed throughout the reign of the dinosaurs, but could not compete for the large terrestrial vertebrate niches which dinosaurs monopolized. The end-Cretaceous mass extinction removed the non-avian dinosaurs and made it possible for mammals to expand into the large terrestrial vertebrate niches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
 

Back
Top Bottom