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

[Hehehe]

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.

I thought of this too, but then why focus on saving the species rather than saving the environment?

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.







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).

If it really is toxins causing this then indeed we have something to worry about. But the reason I wanted an example from history is that, while I do understand the importance of bees in the ecosystem, first of all it is not certain that bees are going extinct (human population was very small at one point, but we certainly aren't extinct). Secondly, while bees disappearing could be devastating, and likely would be, there's just too many factors at play to know for sure. While it is easy to say just how big of a part bees play in the ecosystem, it is much harder (for me at least) to say how the ecosystem will react to their disappearance. This is why I would have preferred an example from history: if a species disappeared, we would have been able to observe the damage rather than theorize.

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.

I am not disputing the mass deaths of bees, I'm just saying Daily Mail's reputation isn't that good. I am familiar with the bee situation. But I am also familiar with Daily Mail's reputation.

 

[Tahuti]

Looks like evolution is going to claim another victim. I believe Daily Mail readers are next in line.

 

[Formaldehyde]

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

According to the Wiki article, it had a significant impact. Or don't you think ruining its natural habitat of a substantial portion of Vietnam with the extreme overuse of Agent Orange and by other means was the fault of the US government?

 

[El_Machinae]

I thought of this too, but then why focus on saving the species rather than saving the environment?

I expect it's the mascot effect. But, if done properly, the species is a proxy for the environment, so it's a similar effect. We've found that unfocused appeals don't do as well, I guess.

There're lots of examples where lots of biodiversity causes problems. The problem is that giving examples usually results in people distinguishing the example in order to ignore it, instead of just accepting that the example is intended to give a 'gist'. So, off the top of my head, monoculture croplands causes a massive loss of biodiversity compared to wild meadows. These monoculture croplands, as a result, lose a tremendous amount of topsoil to the winds and water erosion, in essence depleting our natural capital. As long as there are topsoil reserves, this isn't an issue. But in areas where the topsoil gets depleted, this causes diminishing returns on efforts to produce food, and thus decreases human prosperity. There're similar examples of hurting wetlands, and losing their ability to clean aquifer water (which is a problem whereever there are diminishing water supplies)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ok, I've resisted all this time. No more.


Link to video.

 

[Formaldehyde]

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.

Of course it was. According to the Wiki article I posted, a single kg of rhino horn can fetch as much as $30K for quack medicine. It is the epitome of pure greed.

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!

This Rhino was living on such a preserve.

 

[G-Max]

Natural selection at work.

Not that I approve of poaching, or really the killing of any animal for reasons not necessary to survival, but there are plenty of animal species that have managed to avoid human-induced extinction. This is just "survival of the least likely to have parts that could be thought to have medicinal properties".

 

[Winner]

Natural selection at work.

Not that I approve of poaching, or really the killing of any animal for reasons not necessary to survival, but there are plenty of animal species that have managed to avoid human-induced extinction. This is just "survival of the least likely to have parts that could be thought to have medicinal properties".

It never ceases to amaze me in how many depraved ways people can misunderstand and misuse the phrase "natural selection"

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I'm beginning to think the human mindset is not evolved enough to tackle this issue. One day at work, a guy was talking about shooting a squirrel in his back yard. I asked why he shot it, and his response was along the lines of "meh, I just wanted to."

If the ability to kill is met and rationalized after the fact by, "well, ok", then I don't see how we even deserve to keep this planet much longer.

 

[Patroklos]

According to the Wiki article, it had a significant impact. Or don't you think ruining its natural habitat of a substantial portion of Vietnam with the extreme overuse of Agent Orange and by other means was the fault of the US government?

Yeah, I'm sure that ten percent or less of Vietnam that was defoliated at any one time, mostly around villages who are the primarily cause of rhino decline in the first place, 40+ years ago really mattered

People forget that half of the chemical wasn't even used to defoliation but rather crop destruction.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yeah, painstaking efforts to keep the last dozen of a species are merely feel-good efforts.

What? What about Canadian Geese, American Bison etc.

 

[innonimatu]

Well, this case does appear to be one of unjustifiable greed. But by default I'm very reluctant to agree with the "let's protect the animals" crowd because they have a history of putting animal's "rights" above people's rights. The rights of the people living near those animals, that is.

 

[El_Machinae]

What? What about Canadian Geese, American Bison etc.

Those might be very good counterpoints to my statement, so thank you. I don't know the bottom limit these species reached before we started protecting them, so I don't know what they recovered from. If they recovered from 'a dozen' or so, then hats off to you.

I tend to think of extinctions in terms of habitat destruction, so by the time a species is 'at a dozen', I'd assume the battle has been lost. If they're being hunted to extinction, then I guess protecting even a dozen might be worthwhile in getting them to recover.

 

[Patroklos]

We also have to be cognizant of the simple fact that some species are already natures home grown losers, on there way out anyway. Nature may not be as quick to judge as humans, but species are in fact on the decline wholly independent of human action. We are sometimes just hastening the inevitable.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Those might be very good counterpoints to my statement, so thank you. I don't know the bottom limit these species reached before we started protecting them, so I don't know what they recovered from. If they recovered from 'a dozen' or so, then hats off to you.

I tried to find exact numbers. At least one species of Canadian Goose was actually thought to be extinct until a single flock was found, the Bison came back from 1000 in captivity and the wild. Not quite as bad, but it's definitely worth the effort.

I tend to think of extinctions in terms of habitat destruction, so by the time a species is 'at a dozen', I'd assume the battle has been lost. If they're being hunted to extinction, then I guess protecting even a dozen might be worthwhile in getting them to recover.

That does tend to be a key difference yes. Canadian Geese for example when reintroduced minus the hunting, exploded into such numbers that now lethal culling is required to keep their numbers in check.
"Fortunately" the Javan Rhino is one such animal. As terrible as deforestation in southeast Asia is, it's unthinkable that there is no forest in all of Indochina, Sumatra and Java capable of supporting them.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

Every time a species goes extinct, it has serious effects on the local ecosystem.

 

[Patroklos]

No, it doesn't. It's a natural process. While I am sad to see any species go, keeping our biodiversity in a state of unaltered stasis is not at all natural. Conservation energies should be prioritized. Rhinos are cool and all but they are archaic leftovers already in decline for a long time before humans got involved. Certain whales on the other hand are not and their decline is almost purely a man made event. I feel we have more of an obligation to the latter sort.

 

[Masada]

I thought of this too, but then why focus on saving the species rather than saving the environment?

Ehhhhhhh protecting the Javan Rhino protects the last actual wilderness left on Java. It's kind of the sole reason that it exists and it likely wouldn't exist without the Rhino.

Rhinos are cool and all but they are archaic leftovers already in decline for a long time before humans got involved.

I would love to see the actual evidence for this claim; because we have evidence that rhino horns were being exported from Sumatra into China as early as the 600s courtesy of I-Tsing. We also know courtesy of things like Chinese Dynastic Records and local Court Records - Majapahit, Malacca and Ayutthaya - that Rhino horn was a valuable substance, that was exchanged with the Chinese on a quite significant scale: we're talking hundreds of kilos in the official tribute component. That alone is representative of a few hundred individuals and represents the smaller part of trade with China in the appropriate periods. On the basis, not to mention more systematic modern assaults on Rhino populations, and the very expansive (covering all of Southeast Asia) known historical range of Asian Rhinos, I would suggest that nature didn't have much of a hand in the matter. Then again, I might be ignorant or something.

 

[Algeroth]

"War on Nature"? Sweet Lord Cthulhu, this thread is a farce.

Yes, its sad that the Javanese rhino is no longer in Vietnam. But only for aesthetics and perhaps ethical reasons. It is simply not true that "Every time a species goes extinct, it has serious effects on the local ecosystem.", especially when you have the last surviving animal.

And to the bee people: 1) Bees aren't the only pollinators that exist. 2) Domesticated bees aren't the only bees that live.

 

[Benefactor]

"Oooh, 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."

I for one, think Mr. Burns is right .