Nature Preserve or Evolution?

[sourboy]

So I'm reading about this drought in Georgia, USA and it says there's some dam or something that's preserving a wildlife region for the sake of some mussels and some other aquatic species. However, due to this recent drought in the south, that water that should be flowing south is being deprived from a region that has humans dwelling there.

If evolution is true, won't all species adapt or be replaced? "Only the strong will survive"? It's not like the humans are stealing the water from the marine life. The dam is saving these species, while changing the evolving landscape. Why not let nature take it's course? Screw the mussels, with or without that wildlife area, if water dries up in the north, so be it.

This is just one example.... but should we be preserving species? or let evolution and/or nature act on it's own?

Thoughts?

 

[Atlas14]

Let the humans adapt and evolve to the presence of no water. They'll be fine in the big scheme of things.

 

[skadistic]

Let the humans adapt and evolve to the presence of no water. They'll be fine in the big scheme of things.

If it wasn't for man those muscles would be dead by now.

 

[Che Guava]

So I'm reading about this drought in Georgia, USA and it says there's some dam or something that's preserving a wildlife region for the sake of some mussels and some other aquatic species. However, due to this recent drought in the south, that water that should be flowing south is being deprived from a region that has humans dwelling there.

I did hear about this, but I think you might have it backwards. What the Georgia gov is trying to get done is to reduce the flow of water from the reservoir (link), instead of allowing it to flow downstream into rivers that support rare fish and mussel populations.

If evolution is true, won't all species adapt or be replaced? "Only the strong will survive"? It's not like the humans are stealing the water from the marine life. The dam is saving these species, while changing the evolving landscape. Why not let nature take it's course? Screw the mussels, with or without that wildlife area, if water dries up in the north, so be it.

First of all, whether or not evolution is 'true' has little to nothing to do with conservation. The species that occur naturally in areas like Georgia's streambeds have evolved to be the strongest survivors in that particular environment. In conservation we take steps to preserve certain species that we either think are beneficial or enjoy intrinsically. If we decided just to go full force in development, there would be little left save rats, mice, cockraoches and a host of other animals that are 'strong enough' to survive us....

And as you might have guessed from my earlier comment, the dam isn't saving any of these species, its actually doing harm to them by drying up the rivers that they need to survive.

This is just one example.... but should we be preserving species? or let evolution and/or nature act on it's own?

Yes we should, if we like the earth at least somehwat the way it is today. THe problem with eliminating species that have taken millenia to evolve is that once they are gone, it might take another millenia for something else to evolve enough to fit thier niche as efficiently as they do.

 

[skadistic]

99% of all species to ever live are extinct.

 

[Che Guava]

99% of all species to ever live are extinct.

True. And probably 99% of all people ever born are now dead....What does that have to do with this situation?

 

[skadistic]

True. And probably 99% of all people ever born are now dead....What does that have to do with this situation?

It simply means things will die off. Its called nature. Things live and things die. Those that adapt live on. Those that don't we find in layers of dirt as fossils. People think to much about the here and now. Its like the global warming crowd who take data from a few centuries and say its all doom and gloom. In the big picture we and all these other species are insignificant. If some obscure mulosk dies off in GA its not that big of a deal. It means nothing to the big picture and not much more to its impact on humanity.

 

[Che Guava]

It simply means things will die off. Its called nature. Things live and things die. Those that adapt live on. Those that don't we find in layers of dirt as fossils. People think to much about the here and now. Its like the global warming crowd who take data from a few centuries and say its all doom and gloom. In the big picture we and all these other species are insignificant. If some obscure mulosk dies off in GA its not that big of a deal. It means nothing to the big picture and not much more to its impact on humanity.

You'll die one day soon as well, that doesn't mean you should give up on life!

Look, its true that in the big picture, it doesn't really matter at all. That mussel, that sturgeon, and us, are just going to end up as fossils somewhere someday, in the big picture. Only problem is...we live in the SMALL picture! If we get rid of species, they will be replaced eventually. Most likely though, we'll be gone by then! And in the meantime,we don't have a replacement.

So what matters exactly then: the so-called short-term (that being the next 200-500 years), or the 'big picture' (millions of years into the future, 97% of that time in which humanity as we know it will most likely not exist). I say save what you can today, because its going to be a long time until you can get another...

 

[Trafalgar]

There are some people I would happily sacrifice for a mussel.

 

[Bill3000]

If evolution is true, won't all species adapt or be replaced? "Only the strong will survive"? It's not like the humans are stealing the water from the marine life. The dam is saving these species, while changing the evolving landscape. Why not let nature take it's course? Screw the mussels, with or without that wildlife area, if water dries up in the north, so be it.

That's not natural selection, it's artifical selection.

Besides, biodiversity is incredibly useful to humanity, and yes, that includes outside of moral purposes.

 

[skadistic]

I will die one day and I hope family isn't going to keep me from dieing. Much less keep me from dieing at the expense of some one else. Tasmanian Tiger is gone. We don't have another one we don't need another one. A marginal species like this shellfish or some field mouse in the middle of the desert isn't that important. Not in the long term or short term.

 

[Stile]

They're actually talking about bathing restrictions (not that anyone would notice in Forsyth County, where the lake is).

Drinking > Bathing > Biodiversity > Landscaping > Water sports

 

[Irish Caesar]

This is just one example.... but should we be preserving species? or let evolution and/or nature act on it's own?

Thoughts?

We should be planning our cities intelligently, instead of like Atlanta. Ugly sprawl, bad public transportation... and fingerpointing rather than trying to figure out what to do with our water.

But I digress.

Ideally, we should be building cities and homes to use resources as effectively as possible. But we should be looking out for other species out there, too.

I did hear about this, but I think you might have it backwards. What the Georgia gov is trying to get done is to reduce the flow of water from the reservoir (link), instead of allowing it to flow downstream into rivers that support rare fish and mussel populations.

Governor Perdue would like to sue the Army Corps. of Engineers over this: The US gov't is moving water out of Lake Lanier in order to continue down river to the shellfish; the Georgia gov't wants to keep the water here.

They're actually talking about bathing restrictions (not that anyone would notice in Forsyth County, where the lake is).

Drinking > Bathing > Biodiversity > Landscaping > Water sports

Group showers!



*checks ratio*

 

[El_Machinae]

Evolution takes time to restore a healthy balance, and usually the inter-balance portions are ... unpleasant. If you're going to let nature take its course, nature is very, very slow. Nature has turnover, but we're causing extinction on a scale that's too fast to recover from if we make a mistake

I'm all in favour of reasoned intervention in nature for our benefit, but too often the people wanting to do the damage aren't nearly informed enough to be making any kinds of decisions along those lines.

 

[Rheinmetall]

Human made changes in the environment are too fast for evolution.

It's like shooting someone in the head and insisting him to adapt to the bullet in the head instead of dying.

 

[Atlas14]

If it wasn't for man those muscles would be dead by now.

Man put them in the dependent situation in the first place.

 

[Narz]

True. And probably 99% of all people ever born are now dead....

Actually I think almost half of all people once alive are now alive. Crazy schnit, huh?

Besides, biodiversity is incredibly useful to humanity, and yes, that includes outside of moral purposes.

For shizzle. We may have already screwed ourselves though. Only time will tell.

Drinking > Bathing > Biodiversity > Landscaping > Water sports

I'd say biodiversity is more important than bathing. People can take 3-minute showers, I did at boarding school for two years.

Man put them in the dependent situation in the first place.

Exactly.

We are in a situation where we must pay attention to the needs of the Earth (in other words - keep the Earth stable enough for our own survival) or we will perish.

From the perspective of future generations as well as the overall habitability of the Earth we need a major population and consumption drop. From an overall quality of life perspective we need fewer humans and more plants.

 

[EconomistBR]

The survival of all other species of this planet in the long term depends only on us, Humans.

Let evolution decide?? Why??? We didn't vote for it and we don't need it anymore.

Freeze the DNA, allow the species to go extinct and then use the DNA to recreate the species in a million years from now. Big deal....

 

[Narz]

The survival of all other species of this planet in the long term depends only on us, Humans.

How do you figure?

Let evolution decide?? Why??? We didn't vote for it and we don't need it anymore.

What?

Freeze the DNA, allow the species to go extinct and then use the DNA to recreate the species in a million years from now. Big deal....

You've been reading too much Michael Crichton.

 

[LightFang]

We are in a situation where we must pay attention to the needs of the Earth (in other words - keep the Earth stable enough for our own survival) or we will perish.

From the perspective of future generations as well as the overall habitability of the Earth we need a major population and consumption drop. From an overall quality of life perspective we need fewer humans and more plants.

Let's look at this from an economist's perspective, before the free market jokes!

It's market failure, guys! The invisible hand doesn't always work!