Why is species diversity important?

[Narz]

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

Right. Ecology is a lot more complicated than say, rocket science.

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

Nice quote! That's why permaculture is on the up & up, one of it's basic premises is to try to mimic nature's resiliency & output in growing "crops".

 

[Bootstoots]

Insects are outright useless. And very annyoing. I wouldn't feel the slightest regret if I pressed a button that caused all bloodsucking bugs to die immediately and painfully.

Many insects, especially bees and other pollinators, are really important to humans. I absolutely do support the eradication of all disease-bearing mosquitoes, on the other hand.

You know what are outright useless? Large mammals. Seriously, how would humanity suffer if all the pandas were slaughtered, other than that we'd have one less cute fluffy mammal? Not that I support doing that, but I worry a whole lot more about bee populations than I ever would about pandas.

I've got one genuine question that I don't know the answer to, but having it answered might help to shed light on this problem. It's kind of crazy, but here goes:

Other than the collapse of the fishing industry, what would happen if all aquatic animals in the ocean suddenly died? Suppose that algae and cyanobacteria populations remained unchanged, so that there would be no (initial) change in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere. Besides fishing, I can't think of any reason to worry about that. I'm sure there are huge things I must be overlooking though, right?

edit: Post 4000! Only ~6 years after post 3000!

edit2: I suppose we would lose lots of birds, which would then have some sort of ripple effect on land ecosystems. But I want to hear a bunch of other answers to my question, too. I think it might help to guide this discussion.

 

[warpus]

Other than the collapse of the fishing industry, what would happen if all aquatic animals in the ocean suddenly died? Suppose that algae and cyanobacteria populations remained unchanged, so that there would be no (initial) change in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere. Besides fishing, I can't think of any reason to worry about that. I'm sure there are huge things I must be overlooking though, right?

I think if that happened the oceans would fill up with small organisms like algae and plankton, which would eventually, over millions of years, evolve back into fish. And then the Japanese would have sushi again and civilization could return to normal.

 

[Bootstoots]

But what would the Japanese have evolved into by then?! Assuming of course that they still exist, given the lack of sushi and their reluctance to reproduce even in a world with sushi.

 

[warpus]

You fool! Japanese people don't evolve!

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

You fool! Japanese people don't evolve!

If cartoons have taught me anything it's that radiation makes things evolve. And the Japanese have radiation to spare.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

For example did you know that no wolves in Yellowstone leads to deforestation?

The introduction of wolves was just an artificial solution to that problem. The wolves never controlled the population of elk in Yellowstone. It was the native people who used to live there that controlled their population until the American government kicked them out to make the place a National Park.

 

[innonimatu]

But you don't see many people worrying about man becoming an "endangered species" in natural parks!

 

[SerriaFox]

The introduction of wolves was just an artificial solution to that problem. The wolves never controlled the population of elk in Yellowstone. It was the native people who used to live there that controlled their population until the American government kicked them out to make the place a National Park.

According to the program I saw, there is a need to keep the elk moving so that they do not stop long enough to get every shoot of new growth. I would could well believe that either hunter would work though.

 

[Glassfan]

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

...humans are breaking a system that brings about change. We have no right.

It's certainly beginning to look like a mass-extinction, isn't it?

 

[emzie]

The introduction of wolves was just an artificial solution to that problem. The wolves never controlled the population of elk in Yellowstone. It was the native people who used to live there that controlled their population until the American government kicked them out to make the place a National Park.

Not quite true. It'd be an artificial solution to the problem if the wolves hadn't previously been eradicated in the area. Prior to wolves being driven locally extinct and hunter-gathering people being kicked out, both would have been apex predators controlling elk population to some extent.

I called my mom today though and she corrected me on the following bit, and then emailed me this link, which I'll quote:

National attention has been focused on Yellowstone's northern elk winter range since the early 1930s. Scientists and managers then believed that grazing and drought in the early part of the century had reduced the range's carrying capacity, and that twice as many elk were on the range in 1932 as existed in 1914. From 1935 to 1968, elk, pronghorn, and bison numbers were artificially controlled by shooting or trapping and removal by park rangers. Then in the 1960s, based on new studies that suggested ungulate populations could possibly be self-regulating, elk reductions were discontinued in the park. The belief that elk grazing was damaging to northern range vegetation and that grazing accelerates erosion, although not supported by research data and analysis, has continued to the present. Studies of the northern elk winter range began in the 1960s and revealed no clear evidence of range overuse (Houston 1982). More recent studies conclude that sagebrush grasslands of Yellowstone's northern winter range are not overgrazed (Singer and Bishop 1990). In fact, plant production was enhanced by ungulate grazing in all but drought years. Protein content of grasses, yearly growth of big sagebrush, and seedling establishment of sagebrush were all enhanced by ungulate grazing. Neither reduction in root biomass nor an increase in dead bunchgrass clumps was observed. However, many questions remain concerning the condition of riparian zones and associated shrubby vegetation; the park hopes to conduct additional studies on aspen and willows and their relationship to ungulates on the northern range.

It's certainly beginning to look like a mass-extinction, isn't it?

Yes. I don't doubt it'd be treated as such by future "paleontologists" were humans to vanish tomorrow.

 

[aronnax]

Other than the collapse of the fishing industry, what would happen if all aquatic animals in the ocean suddenly died? Suppose that algae and cyanobacteria populations remained unchanged, so that there would be no (initial) change in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere. Besides fishing, I can't think of any reason to worry about that. I'm sure there are huge things I must be overlooking though, right?

Most importantly, it will totally mess up the ability for shores and beaches to resist tsunamis, hurricanes, typhoons etc.

If all the fish die, then the coral reefs will go as well, and coral reefs are essential to the protection of the coast from huge tropical storms and tsunamis. The Maldives didn't survive the 2004 earthquake for nothing. Only 82 people died in the Maldives. And this is their capital.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Male-total.jpg

There's also the collapse of the Tourism industry.

 

[aronnax]

In terms of genetic diversity, you are probably right that human-guided evolutionary products (poultry, bananas, domesticated dogs) are much more important as discussion points than endangered snakes or dolphins... but I guess if you really like dolphins you might disagree.

And hey, I feel bad for all the animals that are dying out there, sure.. but.. I feel a lot worse for the planet as a whole. I don't see us making the planet any better place to live for other species.. or ourselves.. so some species are just going to have to die off.. We've made the planet (and continue to make it) a worse place to live for all, and so, things will die.. I see it as the consequence of human impact, something that just has to be accepted as a loss.

It's like we're stabbing a 60 year old woman to death, but continue to perform plastic surgery on her face and body. We really need to focus on trying to stop the stabbing part before the new boobs go in.

The problem is that... sometimes, the only way to get people to 'stop the stabbing', is to show shove boob jobs in their faces. I think if the Panda were to die off, the overall effect would be minimal, seeing that they only eat bamboo and do not directly affect the ecosystem in any other way. But for some reason, panda's are the literal face of animal conservation.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's true. The 'proper' way to protect nature is to have regions that are allowed to remain wild, and to have these regions be large enough such that they have feed-in effects into unwild areas. Then, in the unwild areas, extinctions have to be such that a sufficient diversity is maintained in order to still have ecosystem services.

Humanity should have a goal of maintaining ecosystem 'islands' that receive minimal or sustainable damage. Other areas should be maintained as wild as possible, too. This will allow each necessary species enough space, food, and reproductive opportunity to maintain themselves.