Why is species diversity important?

[puglover]

I understand why ecologists want to preserve species that serve a vital part in the ecosystem. Of course, if a vital predator is gone there's no population control, and if a primary food source is gone, then a predator dies out. But why would people want to save animals on the verge of extinction, simply because they're endangered? What's the reasoning behind this?

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

I'm not sure I understand your question. You get the connection between diversity and ecosystem health, is the issue why we need stable ecosystems? Or why people want to protect species that no longer fulfill an ecological niche (as a result of drastic ecosystem change)?

Either way, the answer's are pretty much the same. We still depend a great deal on the natural environment and an ecological collapse will adversely affect humanity in quantitative, physical manner. Disease and agricultural losses are two that spring to mind. Also, a great of pharmaceuticals are developed from naturally occurring chemicals in plants and animals.

There's also a moral aspect to it in that people generally think that the destruction of a unique species represents a loss in qualitative, almost abstract beauty of the world. Kind of a 'for whom the bell tolls' thing.

 

[Antilogic]

I'm also not getting where you are coming from. Are you wanting to talk about the science here or are you wanting to talk about PETA and such?

All species, large and small, serve some role in an ecosystem. Since we are king of the hill as far as species go, we have a vested interest in keeping the world the way it is.

 

[Synobun]

Diversity is generally a positive thing to have, in any situation. A good example to prove this is our very own species. If every person was exactly the same because there was absolutely no diversity, there would be no room to grow, both individually and collectively. The same could be said about different plant and animal species. Having a diverse eco-system allows for gradual improvement of the environment and evolution, and also opens up a lot of options medically and scientifically.

 

[Glassfan]

Within a given species, genetic diversity is crucial for adaptaion. Without diversity, a single disease could wipe out the entire population. With it, some will usually have immunity to survive and pass on. Likewise, changes in the econiche can threaten extinction unless some possess the variable characteristics to survive.

Alternately, in terms of ecology, diversity is usually the measure of an ecosystem's general health. If all the niches are filled, including apex-predator, that's a sign of balance and natural hardyness.

In terms of man, as EUM pointed out, humans still depend on the natural world. Someone said, "as bees go, so goes man." We ourselves can't survive without other animals, plants, bacteria and so on.

And diversity is generally a good thing. Diversity in your portfolio, in your community, in your diet, and in your environment.

 

[Elta]

Related to what Glassfan said - All systems are compromises between efficiency and flexibility.

If an ecosystem only does one thing well and that collapses everything in it dies.


Electrical systems are like this too - If you produce too much power and it goes unused it is wasted, if you don't produce a little more to protect the grid from unexpected power spikes it could crash.


Businesses: Very specific rules on every procedure help the new people so that they don't make mistakes, but they can hamstring the people who have been there for a while.

 

[emzie]

We don't understand ecological systems well enough to say what can go extinct without impacting everything else.

 

[El_Machinae]

"I've seen a corn field ruined by a hailstorm. I've never seen a meadow ruined by a hailstorm."

As well, the more diversity there is amongst visible species, the more diversity there is amongst non-visible species. These species are important for retaining/creating biomass, retaining soil, filtering water, and cleaning air.

Think of it like a small town. How many bankruptcies can there be in the town before it's destined to die? There's a tipping point, where it cannot recover to its former glory. And bankruptcies aren't the best analogy, because we can redistribute capital using intelligence. Extinctions can be compensated for, but not at the same timescale.

Since I worry about aquifers so much, iI'll point out that it's species diversity that's really, really important there. Additionally, there're species outside the aquifers that contribute to the species health inside the aquifers.

 

[Combat Ingrid]

Glassfan pretty much summed it up; the diversity (both within a particular species as well as the overall number of species) makes the whole system more stable.

If the issue is why species diversity should be relevant to humans, I would recommend you to read up on the literature on the success story of Irish potatoes; it might give you some insight

 

[warpus]

Glassfan pretty much summed it up; the diversity (both within a particular species as well as the overall number of species) makes the whole system more stable.

Ah, but shouldn't we just leave the system alone, like it has been for the last couple billion years? It's been functioning just fine - killing off species, creating new ones..

If a species is on the verge of extinction, maybe it's time for it to go? It obviously isn't able to adapt to the environment it has found itself in and should be "let go" to give other, more adaptable species room to expand.

Otherwise we are just propping up species that are unable to survive on their own, creating a very diverse, yet un-natural system that doesn't have the natural balance that's required for growth.

 

[Elta]

Unless my Bio 101 and Env 101 professors lied to me - they don't give a hoot unless they think Human beings are somehow causing the extinction, 9 times out of 10 we somehow are.

 

[Algeroth]

I'm also not getting where you are coming from. Are you wanting to talk about the science here or are you wanting to talk about PETA and such?

Let's talk about the science. The debate whether diversity increase stability of ecosystems or not was settled?

 

[aronnax]

If a species is on the verge of extinction, maybe it's time for it to go? It obviously isn't able to adapt to the environment it has found itself in and should be "let go" to give other, more adaptable species room to expand.

Otherwise we are just propping up species that are unable to survive on their own, creating a very diverse, yet un-natural system that doesn't have the natural balance that's required for growth.

Most endangered species are endangered not because they have failed naturally to adapt but rather, because humans have greatly destroyed their natural habitats or killed them personally. Take the River dolphins of the Yangtze and the Ganges. They serve an important role in pruning the the river systems, but human industry has greatly polluted and trapped the swimming/living/hunting area of these mammals.

To say that we should stop trying to save the river dolphins just because we have to vastly prop them up is like saying we should stop trying to preserve Scot Gaelic Language or Native American traditions. These animals/cultures weren't naturally selected to go extinct but rather forced by human hands to die off, which isn't something that should happen.

 

[Combat Ingrid]

Ah, but shouldn't we just leave the system alone, like it has been for the last couple billion years? It's been functioning just fine - killing off species, creating new ones..

If a species is on the verge of extinction, maybe it's time for it to go? It obviously isn't able to adapt to the environment it has found itself in and should be "let go" to give other, more adaptable species room to expand.

Otherwise we are just propping up species that are unable to survive on their own, creating a very diverse, yet un-natural system that doesn't have the natural balance that's required for growth.

Sure. If you can't adapt to the simple fact that I'm killing you and your habitat, you certainly deserve to die

 

[warpus]

Most endangered species are endangered not because they have failed naturally to adapt but rather, because humans have greatly destroyed their natural habitats or killed them personally. Take the River dolphins of the Yangtze and the Ganges. They serve an important role in pruning the the river systems, but human industry has greatly polluted and trapped the swimming/living/hunting area of these mammals.

But unless we are able to restore this species' habitat to what it used to be, what would be the point of keeping the dolphins (for example) around, if they aren't able to cope with the new conditions?

Human industry is here to stay and I don't think parts of the world are going to get much cleaner.. So I understand wanting to preserve a couple members of each species' in a controlled environment, but where are they going to live in the wild? We already know they aren't well suited at adapting to the new environment.

(I do think we should take good care of the planet, but I think the devil's advocate in me has some good points there)

Sure. If you can't adapt to the simple fact that I'm killing you and your habitat, you certainly deserve to die

That's how it's worked for billions of years and it's resulted in incredible species like us!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And we don't want any competition.

The thing is, sure species have been croaking for billions of years, but nothing close to the speed they're croaking now.

 

[aronnax]

But unless we are able to restore this species' habitat to what it used to be, what would be the point of keeping the dolphins (for example) around, if they aren't able to cope with the new conditions?

Human industry is here to stay and I don't think parts of the world are going to get much cleaner.. So I understand wanting to preserve a couple members of each species' in a controlled environment, but where are they going to live in the wild? We already know they aren't well suited at adapting to the new environment.

(I do think we should take good care of the planet, but I think the devil's advocate in me has some good points there)

Because if we left species around the world drop left and right, species diversity will be gravely affected over the long term. If say the only animal in the whole of Yangtze river that goes extinct was just the River dolphin, and plenty of other top food chain predators exist. I'll say you'll have more of a case.
But the thing is, its very likely that dozens of species are disappearing from the river as well. Given enough damage, the whole system will collapse. That is the danger of letting one species die off. It's a clear sign that we are doing something wrong and we should stop now before it's too late.

Now, I agree that industry is here to stay and I will never consider the life of dolphin more important than lifting man out of extreme poverty. I myself think that the Yangtze is not going to get cleaner without serious government intervention from Beijing. But to give it up, let the dolphins go extinct is like declaring the river a dead zone. Rapid species extinction only occurs when the environment has been greatly disturbed. If you can't make the river habitable for those dolphins, you can't make it habitable for a whole lot of other species, you can't sustain the river ecosystem, it collapses. And humans will suffer terribly from it, seeing that it is the rivers that feed us, water us and protect the land from erosion.

 

[Monsterzuma]

Most endangered species are endangered not because they have failed naturally to adapt but rather, because humans have greatly destroyed their natural habitats or killed them personally.

this is all part of the "natural selection" deal. they failed to adapt to rampaging humanity.

problem, dodos?

 

[aronnax]

this is all part of the "natural selection" deal. they failed to adapt to rampaging humanity.

problem, dodos?

Are you being serious or are you being ?

 

[warpus]

Because if we left species around the world drop left and right, species diversity will be gravely affected over the long term. If say the only animal in the whole of Yangtze river that goes extinct was just the River dolphin, and plenty of other top food chain predators exist. I'll say you'll have more of a case.
But the thing is, its very likely that dozens of species are disappearing from the river as well. Given enough damage, the whole system will collapse. That is the danger of letting one species die off. It's a clear sign that we are doing something wrong and we should stop now before it's too late.

Now, I agree that industry is here to stay and I will never consider the life of dolphin more important than lifting man out of extreme poverty. I myself think that the Yangtze is not going to get cleaner without serious government intervention from Beijing. But to give it up, let the dolphins go extinct is like declaring the river a dead zone. Rapid species extinction only occurs when the environment has been greatly disturbed. If you can't make the river habitable for those dolphins, you can't make it habitable for a whole lot of other species, you can't sustain the river ecosystem, it collapses. And humans will suffer terribly from it, seeing that it is the rivers that feed us, water us and protect the land from erosion.

So say we take in a couple of these dolphins, take care of them in some contained environment and make sure they don't go extinct. What then? Will we ever introduce them back into the wild? Where? In some new habitat? Where they will have to compete with existing species there and destabilize that particular habitat?

What's the plan? The fact is that the planet is getting dirtier because of us.. and sure, I applaud efforts to save dying species, but.. Where are they going to live?

Maybe these new niches we've created (by destroying habitats) are better suited for other forms of life.