Why are species becoming extinct a big deal?

[TITAN308]

Isn't that what the entire history of our planet been? Species dying out and new species being created?

Why is it, all of a sudden, because humans causes some of these extinctions its a somehow a big deal? This is just my random thought and question for the night. Every now and then I read an article about a man made creation being blocked, something usually that will prosper thousands, if not tens of thousands of people in some fashion or another, because some species of bird or plant will be killed off.

Have living beings (and I count vegetation as well) not been doing this to each other for millions of years?

Also, don't we continue to find new species of life in the wild to this very day?

[I Push Buttons]

Because we have the ability to prevent them from going extinct.

[Deleted]

Because we have the ability to prevent them from going extinct.

That answers nothing, try again.

[Vanyali]

Because species don't exist in a vacuum.

Getting rid of one can have catastrophic consequences for the rest of the environment, and leave open a niche that was filled for a reason.

For example, wolves. We thought it was really cool to get rid of wolves, because they're preying on our livestock, right? Well, turns out.. wolves don't actually prey on livestock all that much unless you starve them of food elsewhere, and when you do that deer populations absolutely explode, which means they eat their way out of where they're at and either starve to death or go toward crops. So now we have a ton of deer running around causing issues, with nothing to stop them, that then eat the new growth of the trees, which means the trees that die every year are less likely to be replaced, which changes the environment to become drier / more windy, which means that crops are harder to grow..

Species don't go extinct in mass waves normally. It's slower, and generally due to something else being better adapted and out-competing them.

[Fawkess]

Humans

Since we are humans

[I Push Buttons]

That answers nothing, try again.

Because we realized hunting a species to extinction to make piano keys or fur coats isn't a good thing.

[Therougetitan]

Species go out naturally yes, but not this quickly

We also need other species. The ecosystems need them. See: Bees

[Deleted]

Humans

Since we are humans

Yup. All humans are the same, all life is the same. I still wonder how some people can not be us.

[TITAN308]

Because species don't exist in a vacuum.

Getting rid of one can have catastrophic consequences for the rest of the environment, and leave open a niche that was filled for a reason.

For example, wolves. We thought it was really cool to get rid of wolves, because they're preying on our livestock, right? Well, turns out.. wolves don't actually prey on livestock all that much unless you starve them of food elsewhere, and when you do that deer populations absolutely explode, which means they eat their way out of where they're at and either starve to death or go toward crops. So now we have a ton of deer running around causing issues, with nothing to stop them, that then eat the new growth of the trees, which means the trees that die every year are less likely to be replaced, which changes the environment to become drier / more windy, which means that crops are harder to grow..

Species don't go extinct in mass waves normally. It's slower, and generally due to something else being better adapted and out-competing them.

Wouldn't all of this lead to some sort of eventual evolution, as things have always done? Even if its accelerated?

[Deleted]

Because species don't exist in a vacuum.

Getting rid of one can have catastrophic consequences for the rest of the environment, and leave open a niche that was filled for a reason.

For example, wolves. We thought it was really cool to get rid of wolves, because they're preying on our livestock, right? Well, turns out.. wolves don't actually prey on livestock all that much unless you starve them of food elsewhere, and when you do that deer populations absolutely explode, which means they eat their way out of where they're at and either starve to death or go toward crops. So now we have a ton of deer running around causing issues, with nothing to stop them, that then eat the new growth of the trees, which means the trees that die every year are less likely to be replaced, which changes the environment to become drier / more windy, which means that crops are harder to grow..

Species don't go extinct in mass waves normally. It's slower, and generally due to something else being better adapted and out-competing them.

The same goes with many other specied we killed...

[TITAN308]

Ok another question, does anyone know how many meat eating predators roamed our Earth at the times of Dinosaurs for example? Was the number anywhere close to say, the 7 billion we have now? (humans)

How about herbivores?

Also, how much meat was required for a (just random selection here) T-Rex to consume daily? Now how many humans would that feed?

[Deleted]

Because we realized hunting a species to extinction to make piano keys or fur coats isn't a good thing.

"Why is this bad?"
"Because it's not good."

[LiiLoSNK]

I don't think I'd care if turtles went extinct. They bring me no joy.

[Vanyali]

Wouldn't all of this lead to some sort of eventual evolution, as things have always done? Even if its accelerated?

Yes and no.

We're controlling it to a degree now - a predator on the level of wolves will likely never arise again, because we'll likely see it and eradicate it before it becomes big enough to take on the deer. What MIGHT happen would be that insects bearing disease might start decimating deer populations... but then the immune deer would just start the cycle over again.

Evolution also takes time. A lot of time. The deer aren't going to stop reproducing and eating because there's nothing to hunt them - that prosperity just means more and more deer. We address it through hunting seasons now, but said seasons really aren't the greatest for the deer, since we hunt for the biggest and strongest males, which means the deer born are from males that otherwise wouldn't reproduce, which means the deer are getting smaller than they might otherwise. Wolves and other predators take the elderly, the weak, and the small. Humans take the large, the strong, and the ones in their prime.

- - - Updated - - -

The same goes with many other specied we killed...

It's easier to keep it to three species for an example, though

[I Push Buttons]

"Why is this bad?"
"Because it's not good."

Is it only bad to kill humans?

[Vanyali]

Ok another question, does anyone know how many meat eating predators roamed our Earth at the times of Dinosaurs for example? Was the number anywhere close to say, the 7 billion we have now? (humans)

How about herbivores?

Also, how much meat was required for a (just random selection here) T-Rex to consume daily? Now how many humans would that feed?

It depends if the t-rex was warm blooded, cold blooded, or somewhere in between. The latter is what most people are thinking currently. In that case, less than you might think - snakes eat once or twice a week, for example, because they don't have to burn calories to keep warm. A middle-blood (?! no idea what the name would be) would eat a lot when young and less when older and bigger.

As for number.. impossible to know. You can generally have one carnivore per aboutttttt.. 100 herbivores or something. Depending on size. Herbivores will always outnumber carnivores, but the ratio is important to preserve for population stability.

[TITAN308]

Is it only bad to kill humans?

Funny you ask that. We do have a bit of a growing human population problem.

We use to let Darwin help us in this case, but sadly now, thanks to places like California or our Federal Government, we have to put "Do not drink" on bottles of bleach. We use to let stupid take care of itself, but along the line somewhere we made it a duty to keep them in the gene pool.

[Rudkobing]

loosely translated:
Don't fuck with Mother Nature.

[endersblade]

Ok another question, does anyone know how many meat eating predators roamed our Earth at the times of Dinosaurs for example? Was the number anywhere close to say, the 7 billion we have now? (humans)

How about herbivores?

Also, how much meat was required for a (just random selection here) T-Rex to consume daily? Now how many humans would that feed?

That is an illogical question, since humans primarily grow their own meat. The number of humans who hunt for their own food is an extremely tiny minority, and therefore would have a minimal impact on a wild species.

Now, if we're taking FISH into account when you say meat, then yes, we are ruining a lot of fish populations, that is for damned sure.

[TITAN308]

It depends if the t-rex was warm blooded, cold blooded, or somewhere in between. The latter is what most people are thinking currently. In that case, less than you might think - snakes eat once or twice a week, for example, because they don't have to burn calories to keep warm. A middle-blood (?! no idea what the name would be) would eat a lot when young and less when older and bigger.

As for number.. impossible to know. You can generally have one carnivore per aboutttttt.. 100 herbivores or something. Depending on size. Herbivores will always outnumber carnivores, but the ratio is important to preserve for population stability.

I guess I am asking, because if the extinction of dinosaurs had not happened, I wonder if given enough time they would have done what we are doing in terms of consumption and killing off tons of species.