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

[Tee Kay]

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

But 1) other pollinators may not be specific to the needs of certain plants and/or too small in numbers or range to fill the gap left by bees and 2) wild bees are also affected (in fact they are faring worse than domesticated bees) and even if that is not true, there's an economic advantage in domesticated bees since they can be relatively easily transported from place to place or otherwise be located where pollination is needed.

 

[Algeroth]

But 1) other pollinators may not be specific to the needs of certain plants and/or too small in numbers or range to fill the gap left by bees and 2) wild bees are also affected (in fact they are faring worse than domesticated bees) and even if that is not true, there's an economic advantage in domesticated bees since they can be relatively easily transported from place to place or otherwise be located where pollination is needed.

1) I'm not a botanist, but number of plant species specialized on bees as their only pollinators would be IMO negligible in Europe and presumably in N. America too.

2) I was under impression that CCD is problem mainly for domesticated bees. I could be wrong, of coure. Do you have any data on this?

 

[Patroklos]

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.

That is all irrelevant, I said BEFORE human intervention. Rhinos as a group of species are hundreds of thousands if not millions of years old. Various types were far more numerous and ranged most of the world at one point, both those meterics were mere shadows of their former highs at the dawn of man.

Like I said, extinction is a natural process. And it doesn't just happen when an asteroid hits, it is always happens. The mechanisms nature uses are far more longwinded than those of man, but it happens nontheless. So, when we are bemoaning which species are no longer with it I think it is usefull to not worry so much about the already naturally selected losers from a conservation standpoint and focus on those dying out from no natural cause at all. If you want to preserve those losers out of sentementality/hertigage/whatever go right ahead but all species are not equal.

 

[Tee Kay]

1) I'm not a botanist, but number of plant species specialized on bees as their only pollinators would be IMO negligible in Europe and presumably in N. America too.

Here's a list.

Remember also that bees are not the only pollinators declining; almost all known pollinators are in decline.

2) I was under impression that CCD is problem mainly for domesticated bees. I could be wrong, of coure. Do you have any data on this?

Estimated 90% of wild bees in the United States died out
Wild bees range contracted by 23%
Wild bees in decline across the United Kingdom
Wild bees disappearing taking plants down with them
Colonies starting to collapse in Asia and Africa

 

[GoodGame]

From a scientific perspective it is a great loss. Ecological, genomic, and other data is lost forever when we kill off a species.

The specific ecological loss due to the extinction is really hard to assess off the cuff. Animals selectively eat certain other species, leave dung, contributing to environment and interrelating in a web with other species. Who knows what microbes and what not are lost with this host. Losing one species might not be truly destructive to the ecology, but who really knows? Possibly another species expands to fill in niche, or even just the contributions of the previous species, but maybe not.

Culturally, it is probably a loss. It also shows that we don't care, or are unable to manage the environment in the face of population growth. So it is a canary in the coal mine warning at least.


Patroklos's counter-points are well-taken. But we can't always assume that the remainder of the ecology left behind after these single species extinctions is actually good for humans or a positive consequence of the superiority of humans. Extinctions really may be something that humans need to mitigate, for our own good.

 

[Winner]

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

The title is a bit exaggerated, but essentially correct.

 

[ParkCungHee]

That is all irrelevant, I said BEFORE human intervention. Rhinos as a group of species are hundreds of thousands if not millions of years old. Various types were far more numerous and ranged most of the world at one point, both those meterics were mere shadows of their former highs at the dawn of man.

That's a terrible way of understanding if man is involved in the extinction of the Javanese Rhino. By that standard, humans themselves are doomed to extinction, and are a total evolutionary failure. So are birds, reptiles in general, fish, amphibians, camels and cameloids...

 

[Algeroth]

Here's a list.

Remember also that bees are not the only pollinators declining; almost all known pollinators are in decline.

That seems to be only a List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_by_bees not a List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_solely_by_bees. I'm sure that at least sunflowers are pollinated by butterflies.

Estimated 90% of wild bees in the United States died out
Wild bees range contracted by 23%
Wild bees in decline across the United Kingdom
Wild bees disappearing taking plants down with them
Colonies starting to collapse in Asia and Africa

I stand corrected. Thanks.

 

[Patroklos]

That's a terrible way of understanding if man is involved in the extinction of the Javanese Rhino. By that standard, humans themselves are doomed to extinction, and are a total evolutionary failure. So are birds, reptiles in general, fish, amphibians, camels and cameloids...

No, all those examples would be the opposite of what I say, unless you think the range and number of humans has decreased naturally as of late.

 

[Tee Kay]

That seems to be only a List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_by_bees not a List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_solely_by_bees. I'm sure that at least sunflowers are pollinated by butterflies.

If you look really closely, you might see that it is also ranked by pollinator impact.

 

[ParkCungHee]

No, all those examples would be the opposite of what I say, unless you think the range and number of humans has decreased naturally as of late.

It certainly has. Hominids were once a diverse and thriving bunch, with several self-sustaining species. In the past few million years, almost every kind of hominid has either gone extinct, or is nearly extinct. They are clearly relics doomed to extinction.

 

[Artifis]

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.

How about looking at the issue from another direction?

One measure of how healthy an ecosystem is is its level of biodiversity. Consequently, the less biodiversity there is, the less healthy it is. The loss of species due to human impact is a show of how we are slowly destroying the ecosystem.

 

[Akka]

How is this going to negatively effect me?

World isn't centered on your navel ?

 

[Algeroth]

If you look really closely, you might see that it is also ranked by pollinator impact.

I noticed, but without methodology, it doesn't mean anything.

 

[amadeus]

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

Actually, it's communism's fault. Who owns the rhino? Nobody, so who has the incentive to protect the rhino? Nobody. If you privatized the rhino and gave someone a stake in making sure they were safe, they wouldn't go extinct.

 

[Hehehe]

How about looking at the issue from another direction?

One measure of how healthy an ecosystem is is its level of biodiversity. Consequently, the less biodiversity there is, the less healthy it is. The loss of species due to human impact is a show of how we are slowly destroying the ecosystem.

A greater degree of species or biological diversity - commonly referred to as Biodiversity - of an ecosystem may contribute to greater resilience of an ecosystem, because there are more species present at a location to respond to change and thus "absorb" or reduce its effects.

*snip*

This is not universally the case and there is no proven relationship between the species diversity of an ecosystem and its ability to provide goods and services on a sustainable level: Humid tropical forests produce very few goods and direct services and are extremely vulnerable to change, while many temperate forests readily grow back to their previous state of development within a lifetime after felling or a forest fire. Some grasslands have been sustainably exploited for thousands of years (Mongolia, Africa, European peat and mooreland communities).

As for the example I was looking for, I happened to think of one myself: the Easter Island. After large scale deforestation the island could no longer support nearly as much population (although this was more of a case of destroying the whole ecosystem, rather than a single species, and it is debatable how directly relevant it is in this case)

 

[innonimatu]

Actually, it's communism's fault. Who owns the rhino? Nobody, so who has the incentive to protect the rhino? Nobody. If you privatized the rhino and gave someone a stake in making sure they were safe, they wouldn't go extinct.

And me here thinking that the problem was someone's attempt to privatize the rhino's horn...

 

[7ronin]

1. Even with the resources we have in the developed world, native species are still going extinct. How can we expect the third world which has even fewer resources to do better.

2. Not only animals are going extinct but plants as well. Who knows, a plant which went extinct ten years ago might have held the cure to cancer.

3. Extinction can take different forms and routes. Some canine breeds are dying out because they are no longer popular.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Actually, it's communism's fault. Who owns the rhino? Nobody, so who has the incentive to protect the rhino? Nobody. If you privatized the rhino and gave someone a stake in making sure they were safe, they wouldn't go extinct.

You forget that that has a very large up front-cost, and lowers the value of the product, and is a high risk venture. It's in ones rational self-interest as a rhino poacher to just kill them in the wild.