The Latest on the War on Nature: another mammal species (nearly) gone

[Winner]

What do you mean not recoverable? Another rhino may not evolve, but surely biodiversity can grow (even though it may or may not be growing right now)?

Not recoverable within time periods humans can comprehend. Sure, if something happens to us, in a few million years the damage we've done will look just like any other mass extinction from which the biosphere eventually recovered and some future palaeontologists will argue about the causes of the extinction.

But that fact is hardly of any consolation to us now.

 

[Artifis]

What do you mean not recoverable? Another rhino may not evolve, but surely biodiversity can grow (even though it may or may not be growing right now)?

Biodiversity can grow? Oh certainly. But you'll have to wait millennia at the very least. Do you think the unchecked growth of humans will allow for this timeframe?

Can you (or anyone) give me an example how a species going extinct has caused major damage to an ecosystem?

Your question is unfair for two reasons.

Firstly, the nature of wildlife reduction nowadays doesn't happen one species by one. It happens to many at the same time. Usually, when humans go to a natural environment and exploit it, they don't target individual species. They target the whole ecosystem. As a result, all animal populations decline.

Because of this, there is no clear way to see whether the reduction in the population of one animal species has caused harm to the environment, because any possible harm it may have done is being negated by the fact that other animals which would've taken advantage of the vacuum are themselves being driven to extinction by human activity.

Secondly, the removal of one animal species, unless it's an animal at the top of the food chain, will most probably not create a drastic change in the ecosystem. This is because nature is such that several animals usually serve similar purposes. For example, the pollination of flowers can be done by bees, butterflies. Get rid of that bird and you still have bees and butterflies.

At the same time, each animal has evolved that it has its place in the ecosystem. It plays a specific role and as a result taking it out of that role can have effects which we as humans may not yet understand.

More importantly, you people have to stop taking such a narrow focus on this issue. The disappearance of this one species may not mean much, but when taken as a trend signifies a disturbing disappearance of our biodiversity with potentially catastrophic events for all of us.

And yet I can still take on your challenge.

It's not of a single species, but of a certain group of species: bees. Bee populations are declining massively worldwide.

From a UN Environment Program study:

Bees pollinate over 70 percent of the 100 crop species that provide 90 percent of global food supplies.

From the Daily Mail:

The world faces a future with little meat and no cotton because of a catastrophic collapse in bee colonies, experts have warned.

Many vital crops are dependent on pollination by honeybees, but latest figures show a third failed to survive the winter in the U.S.

More than three million colonies in America and billions of bees worldwide have died since 2006.

They are a critical part of the food chain and a world without them "would mean a largely meatless diet of rice and cereals, no cotton for textiles, no orchards or wildflowers and decimation among wild birds and animals in the bee food chain."

Granted, scientists worldwide are at a loss as to why they are going extinct, but humans are suspected to be playing a role in this:

Pesticides are believed to be a key cause of a crisis known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CDD), damaging bee health and making them more susceptible to disease.

What is critical is that the extinction of the bee could mean much more than an ecosystem collapse. It will have dire consequences for humans.

Huh, I guess I never looked at rhinos that way.

What about the Kangaroo Island Emu?

Or the Labrador Duck?

Or the Xerces Blue?

Or the Chinese River Dolphin?

Does it have to be pretty before we take action against its extinction?

 

[El_Machinae]

Can you (or anyone) give me an example how a species going extinct has caused major damage to an ecosystem?

Well, coral bleaching is a decent example. The bleaching is caused by one part of a symbiosis being killed, but that ends up killing both species. And because corals are basically 'the rain forest of the ocean', it caused widespread death of massive regions.

But, usually we tend to use large animals as 'umbrella species'. These umbrella species require a decent amount of land, but they're rather adaptable within that land. Specific trends in relative biodiversity are easily adapted to, because they're maleable organisms. So, if the umbrella species start dying off, we know that something is seriously wrong with the management of an area.

Extinctions are like bankruptcies. Some are to be expected. Some might even help. But if the bankruptcies happen too quickly, they eventually feed on each other, and screw everything up.

 

[Yeekim]

For some reason, I started to imagine how lonesome this rhino must've felt during his last years ... I am feeling sad.

 

[Winner]

Don't forget that screwing the environment is impossible without screwing ourselves at the same time. It's not like we're not part of the world that surrounds us, we are part of it, so we should be concerned when it isn't doing that well under our enlightened rule.

 

[Zelig]

The Asian "medical" market sucks, we should be working to reduce the quantity demanded for all the crackpot things they demand.

 

[Skwink]

High fives all around!

 

[Hehehe]

Biodiversity can grow? Oh certainly. But you'll have to wait millennia at the very least. Do you think the unchecked growth of humans will allow for this timeframe?



Your question is unfair for two reasons.

Firstly, the nature of wildlife reduction nowadays doesn't happen one species by one. It happens to many at the same time. Usually, when humans go to a natural environment and exploit it, they don't target individual species. They target the whole ecosystem. As a result, all animal populations decline.

Because of this, there is no clear way to see whether the reduction in the population of one animal species has caused harm to the environment, because any possible harm it may have done is being negated by the fact that other animals which would've taken advantage of the vacuum are themselves being driven to extinction by human activity.

Secondly, the removal of one animal species, unless it's an animal at the top of the food chain, will most probably not create a drastic change in the ecosystem. This is because nature is such that several animals usually serve similar purposes. For example, the pollination of flowers can be done by bees, butterflies. Get rid of that bird and you still have bees and butterflies.

At the same time, each animal has evolved that it has its place in the ecosystem. It plays a specific role and as a result taking it out of that role can have effects which we as humans may not yet understand.

More importantly, you people have to stop taking such a narrow focus on this issue. The disappearance of this one species may not mean much, but when taken as a trend signifies a disturbing disappearance of our biodiversity with potentially catastrophic events for all of us.

Well, coral bleaching is a decent example. The bleaching is caused by one part of a symbiosis being killed, but that ends up killing both species. And because corals are basically 'the rain forest of the ocean', it caused widespread death of massive regions.

But, usually we tend to use large animals as 'umbrella species'. These umbrella species require a decent amount of land, but they're rather adaptable within that land. Specific trends in relative biodiversity are easily adapted to, because they're maleable organisms. So, if the umbrella species start dying off, we know that something is seriously wrong with the management of an area.

Extinctions are like bankruptcies. Some are to be expected. Some might even help. But if the bankruptcies happen too quickly, they eventually feed on each other, and screw everything up.

That is kind of my point. First there is damage to the environment, and then the extinctions happen. Rather than being the cause of the damage, the extinctions are merely a symptom of it. Thus should one want to fix the damage, one should treat the cause. That's why whenever I hear cries to "save species X", it just feels redundant. If their habitat is already occupied by humans, they will go extinct (in theory it is possible that their habitat will be freed again but come on, get real. How many times has that happened?). In a broader manner of speaking, treating the symptom is ineffective if the cause has not been removed.

And yet I can still take on your challenge.

It's not of a single species, but of a certain group of species: bees. Bee populations are declining massively worldwide.

From a UN Environment Program study:



From the Daily Mail:



They are a critical part of the food chain and a world without them "would mean a largely meatless diet of rice and cereals, no cotton for textiles, no orchards or wildflowers and decimation among wild birds and animals in the bee food chain."

Granted, scientists worldwide are at a loss as to why they are going extinct, but humans are suspected to be playing a role in this:

Pesticides are believed to be a key cause of a crisis known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CDD), damaging bee health and making them more susceptible to disease.

What is critical is that the extinction of the bee could mean much more than an ecosystem collapse. It will have dire consequences for humans.

The bee example is a good call, I give you that. But there are a few problems with it. Bees are an important part of the ecosystem, yes, but at this time we simply do not know what is causing the colony collapse disorder. Pesticides are one guess, but AFAIK there is no real evidence showing that pesticides would be the cause. Second, bees are not extinct (not yet at least), so any damage done by the bees' extinction is hypothetical at this point (like you said, many animals serve similar purposes). Also, from what I hear Daily Mail is not very credible source (I am not attacking your argument with this last sentence, I'm merely pointing out that the Daily Mail does not have that good reputation).

What about the Kangaroo Island Emu?

Or the Labrador Duck?

Or the Xerces Blue?

Or the Chinese River Dolphin?

Does it have to be pretty before we take action against its extinction?

To be honest, this is the first time I see any those animals. Anyway, I assure you that the looks of the animal do not matter to me when it comes to the efforts to save them.

Don't forget that screwing the environment is impossible without screwing ourselves at the same time. It's not like we're not part of the world that surrounds us, we are part of it, so we should be concerned when it isn't doing that well under our enlightened rule.

Of course. I support sustainable growth, as unsustainable growth is unsustainable (sounds kind of obvious when I put it like that)

Unlike some people here, I am anthropocentric. That does not mean that I do not care about the environment. I do, because just like Winner said, screwing the environment is impossible without screwing ourselves at the same time (although our views may differ on what constitutes as screwing the environment). I am just curious what are the consequences of our actions.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, painstaking efforts to keep the last dozen of a species are merely feel-good efforts. Usually extinctions are evidence that a biosphere is being upset, and then we have to look whether the upsetting is sustainable.

Most of the imbalances we don't want are for ecosystem services. We care for the rhino out of nostalgia, but it's probably the loss of some mixture of grasses (or whatever) that will cause us the most pain.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There are still at least 40 of this particular species still in existence. If there was only one in Vietnam it was doomed to die out in that location there anyway.

It also appears that "loss of habitat", i.e. pervasive use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, was a major contributor.

 

[Winner]

Tadaa, here we go, it's America's fault.

 

[Artifis]

That is kind of my point. First there is damage to the environment, and then the extinctions happen. Rather than being the cause of the damage, the extinctions are merely a symptom of it. Thus should one want to fix the damage, one should treat the cause. That's why whenever I hear cries to "save species X", it just feels redundant. If their habitat is already occupied by humans, they will go extinct (in theory it is possible that their habitat will be freed again but come on, get real. How many times has that happened?). In a broader manner of speaking, treating the symptom is ineffective if the cause has not been removed.

I see what you mean now. Yes I agree with you on this, and I agree that cries to save "species X" are treating the symptoms rather than the cause. But at the end of the day, these species are still part of the ecosystem, so we should be doing our best to protect them.

On another note, I wonder if this "species fetish" of ours has anything to do with an inability to look at the big picture? That we must have one symbolic species to represent the dying environment rather than a picture of the environment itself? Does a tiger have more impact than a scene of a ravaged forest? If so, then perhaps there is a certain value in highlighting that species' plight after all.

The bee example is a good call, I give you that. But there are a few problems with it. Bees are an important part of the ecosystem, yes, but at this time we simply do not know what is causing the colony collapse disorder. Pesticides are one guess, but AFAIK there is no real evidence showing that pesticides would be the cause. Second, bees are not extinct (not yet at least), so any damage done by the bees' extinction is hypothetical at this point (like you said, many animals serve similar purposes). Also, from what I hear Daily Mail is not very credible source (I am not attacking your argument with this last sentence, I'm merely pointing out that the Daily Mail does not have that good reputation).

Actually, on the issue of real evidence the UN Report gives quite a lot of information. I just read through it here (you can take a look if you're interested).

Also, bees may not be extinct yet, but they are dying in huge numbers. Here's something I got from the UN Report:

I'll just list three reasons given by the report for the drop in bee numbers.

Health
To date, there are 29 biological pathogens known in the beekeeping sector of
industrialised countries, some of which have been the focus of recent studies
on the phenomenon of bee colony mortality (see Figure 7). Introduced parasites
have contributed to a reduction in managed honey bee populations, Varroa
destructor causing the most damage. Originating from Asia, the Varroa mite
reached Europe and North America in the 1980s, and has now spread almost
worldwide (Figure 8).

Pollution and other threats
Air pollution hampers the symbiotic relationships between pollinators and flowers.
Although daytime insects depend primarily on vision to find flowers, pollutants affect
the chemicals that flowers produce to attract insects, which destroys vital scent trails.
Scents that could travel over 800m in the 1800s now reach less than some 200m
from the plant, which complicates pollinators’ ability to locate food sources31.

Chemical drifts from spraying
Chemicals can poison pollinators or impair their reproduction, eliminate nectar
sources and destroy larval host plants for moths and butterflies and deplete bees’
nesting materials32. It is plausible that plant losses from chronic herbicide use may
be driving losses of pollinator species33. Additionally, various broad-spectrum
insecticides are not only applied on agricultural fields but also in residential
gardens, recreational areas, forests as well as mosquito-ridden marshes and
swamps. These chemicals can be equally toxic to beneficial insects as to the target
species34. Chronic or sub-lethal exposure to agricultural or beekeeper-applied
pesticides can weaken the honey bee’s immune system, and hamper bees’ ability to
fight infection.

Turns out the evidence for human's impact may not that weak after all.

As for the importance of bees, you can say that we're hypothesising on what'll happen once bees go extinct, but you should take a read at the excerpt I took out below (important bit boldened by me).

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that out of some 100 crop species which provide 90% of food worldwide, 71 of these are bee-pollinated. In Europe alone, 84% of the 264 crop species are animal pollinated and 4 000 vegetable varieties exist thanks to pollination by bees. The production value of one tonne of pollinator-dependent crop is approximately five times higher than one of those crop categories that do not depend on insects.

Lastly, the Daily Mail is only one of the few sources I linked to up there. The death of bees is well documented from many sources. You can just google it and be swamped with sites on this topic.

Edit to add link to UN Report.

 

[innonimatu]

In the absence of detailed information showing that poaching was done out of pure greed, I'll always, always side with the poachers on this kind of thing. People and animals compete, that's nature for you. Wanting to preserve all species, forever is not only anti-natural, it is impossible, because nature itself is constantly diversifying into more species. Human activities very often disturb the balance on the opposite direction, but that's what humans have been doing for all their existence.

It's tremendously selfish for people in developed countries, with landscapes totally changes by human presence and countless species wiped out in order to make room for that development, to demand of people in less developed countries to not do the same thing! You want to show your kins some live rhino? Get a rhino preserve build on your country, and help fund it!

 

[Bootstoots]

Biodiversity can grow? Oh certainly. But you'll have to wait millennia at the very least. Do you think the unchecked growth of humans will allow for this timeframe?

Local biodiversity certainly can and does grow as an immediate consequence of human activity: we introduce new species to foreign environments all the time! Of course, they sometimes outcompete some native species, so it doesn't always drive up biodiversity in the long run. But sometimes it can.

In the absence of detailed information showing that poaching was done out of pure greed, I'll always, always side with the poachers on this kind of thing. People and animals compete, that's nature for you. Wanting to preserve all species, forever is not only anti-natural, it is impossible, because nature itself is constantly diversifying into more species. Human activities very often disturb the balance on the opposite direction, but that's what humans have been doing for all their existence.

It's tremendously selfish for people in developed countries, with landscapes totally changes by human presence and countless species wiped out in order to make room for that development, to demand of people in less developed countries to not do the same thing! You want to show your kins some live rhino? Get a rhino preserve build on your country, and help fund it!

I would totally agree with you if the animal were driven extinct by some sort of economic necessity, but it sounds to me that these rhinos have been driven to extinction (in Vietnam anyway) by poachers who sell them to gullible people as "traditional medicine" - basically, snake oil. I don't have any sympathy for that.

 

[Yeekim]

It's tremendously selfish for people in developed countries, with landscapes totally changes by human presence and countless species wiped out in order to make room for that development, to demand of people in less developed countries to not do the same thing! You want to show your kins some live rhino? Get a rhino preserve build on your country, and help fund it!

After one has shot himself to the foot, it is selfish of him to warn others against that same move?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

In the absence of detailed information showing that poaching was done out of pure greed, I'll always, always side with the poachers on this kind of thing.

it had been shot in a leg and its horn had been cut off.

Also siding with the poachers when they kill the animal, leave the carcass and only take the horn? What other motive could you attribute to this action?

 

[Winner]

After one has shot himself to the foot, it is selfish of him to warn others against that same move?

Apparently.

Also siding with the poachers when they kill the animal, leave the carcass and only take the horn? What other motive could you attribute to this action?

Just tell him, for heavens sake. The motive is pure GREED (imagine blood dripping from the letters). Rich middle class Chinese want their traditional viagra, so they (indirectly) pay others to poach. It's nothing but theft motivated by greed fuelled by idiocy.

Gosh, aren't we a lovely species...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I recently found out the viagra/aphrodisiac story is a myth.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/rhinoceros/rhino-horn-use-fact-vs-fiction/1178/

However, maybe innonimatu has a point, and we should chip in to relieve this problem. The article closes with a possibility:

In short, says Amin, you’d do just as well chewing on your fingernails.

I'm willing to sell them my fingernailclippings for the same rate as Rhino horns..

 

[Artifis]

In the absence of detailed information showing that poaching was done out of pure greed, I'll always, always side with the poachers on this kind of thing. People and animals compete, that's nature for you. Wanting to preserve all species, forever is not only anti-natural, it is impossible, because nature itself is constantly diversifying into more species. Human activities very often disturb the balance on the opposite direction, but that's what humans have been doing for all their existence.

Humans and animals compete, but because of our advantage in intelligence it's an unfair battle. It's disturbing to see how humanity is spreading throughout the world at the expense of the nature which supports us. I foresee that if we do nothing concrete soon we'll face a population crash.

It's tremendously selfish for people in developed countries, with landscapes totally changes by human presence and countless species wiped out in order to make room for that development, to demand of people in less developed countries to not do the same thing! You want to show your kins some live rhino? Get a rhino preserve build on your country, and help fund it!

There are ways to protect the environment and to promote development at the same time. I agree that these ways require expertise which needs to be more forthcoming from the developed nations, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible.

Furthermore, it's not like developed countries don't want to preserve animal species, but do you think that a temperate country like the USA can build a proper reserve for the rhino, a tropical species?

 

[berkut]

clone the rhino, nuke the country