Protecting endangered species

[Deleted]

I'm pretty sure the nature can rebalance itself.

Try to take a foreign western disease to an isolated island in the east and see how that balances out.

That's why you need vaccinations to visit Asia from America, because your immune systems doesn't know wth those diseases are, and can't build a natural resistance against it when you haven't been born and raised there, so you don't get any kind of exposure. This applies to the animal kingdom as well.

Like http://www.animalcontrol.com.au/foxes.htm

No, nature cannot just balance things like this.

[Deleted]

If they were meant to survive, they would have survived.
Problem?

[Deleted]

If humans are playing a big role in the death of a species like poachers killing off animals like tigers or bears for pelts or use in "medicine", I think we should do everything we can to stop it, but if an animal is dying off simply due to inability to adapt to its environment or predators, I really dont see it as our place to interfere.

[Wells]

If humans are playing a big role in the death of a species like poachers killing off animals like tigers or bears for pelts or use in "medicine", I think we should do everything we can to stop it, but if an animal is dying off simply due to inability to adapt to its environment or predators, I really dont see it as our place to interfere

How do you tell which animals are dying out because of humans and which aren't?

[Deleted]

How do you tell which animals are dying out because of humans and which aren't?

It seems pretty obvious alot of the time. Animals dying off in say the Amazon rainforest because of deforestation and strip mining is something I think we should work against. I've heard a few things about the honey bee population being devesated by a virus, if the virus is manmade or a result of human activities, then we should do what we can, if anything atall to try and stop it, but if theres evidence to say its natural I wouldnt see it as our duty to stop it. But then again that could be aload of crap.

[Wells]

It seems pretty obvious alot of the time. Animals dying off in say the Amazon rainforest because of deforestation and strip mining is something I think we should work against. I've heard a few things about the honey bee population being devesated by a virus, if the virus is manmade or a result of human activities, then we should do what we can, if anything atall to try and stop it, but if theres evidence to say its natural I wouldnt see it as our duty to stop it. But then again that could be aload of crap.

But its not always as obvious as deforestation.

And its a silly qualifier anyway. If a species dies out even for natural reasons it can cause environmental problems that we would find undesirable.

[Powerogue]

only allowing natural selection when the endangering wasn't our fault

that doesn't narrow down the list much...

[rkma]

I think the focus on individual species is misplaced. The goal is (and should be) to preserve ecosystems. You can say "hurr natural selection" but if you destroy entire ecosystems then it really cannot be argued to be a good thing.

[Xeones]

Natural selection has nothing to do with endangered species. They are endangered by us, who have long since passed being "natural".

[Deleted]

The problem with NS at the moment is that it is too slow to compete with human evolution.

Animals aren't allowed anough time to adapt to their ever-changing environments.


That said, I do think we need to draw a line somewhere and agree that not every bird/bug species is worth saving. So many species have died out and so many more will. It's natural.

Whales, Tigers and more "unique" species are a different pair of shoes.

[Alipeve]

There are plenty of humans in situations far worse off than an almost extinct animal species.
Individual humans matter, individual animals don't. If you disagree with humans being a superior species, then automatically we're a part of nature and we should let natural selection run it's course.

Just data-bank the genome for the endangered animals, and we can bring them back when we live in a space colony Utopia in a few thousand years.

We should pay more attention to not letting ourselves go extinct.

[Deleted]

I'm a vegetarian who finds animal charities contemptible. There is so much unimaginable, human suffering going on in the world that it seems foolish to donate valuable time and resources to the conservation of some obscure species of lesser animals.

I don't do enough for charity but when I do give donations, I would rather it be used to help impoverished/abused children over a monochromatic, bamboo-chewing bear that refuses to shag! (It's practically begging for extinction!!) That's all just my opinion of course.

[Kenai]

I'm a vegetarian who finds animal charities contemptible. There is so much unimaginable, human suffering going on in the world that it seems foolish to donate valuable time and resources to the conservation of some obscure species of lesser animals.

I don't do enough for charity but when I do give donations, I would rather it be used to help impoverished/abused children than a monochromatic, bamboo-chewing bear that refuses to shag! (It's practically begging for extinction!!) That's all just my opinion of course.

It's not impossible to help people and animals at the same time, you know.

And considering some of the scientific discoveries and achievements made thanks to some of these so called "lesser species", I think needlessly destroying them while being wholly unaware of the repercussions is a bad idea. I could really go off on a tangent about the importance of biodiversity and such as well but I'd rather not right now.

[Skorpionss]

I believe we should definitely help species that have been impacted by human industrial agriculture growth. However, the animals who go extinct naturally without being impacted by us should just be left for nature to decide their future possible fait.

I'm wondering, will we "humans" ever face extinction through natural selection? Or has our medical and food technology that causes prolonged life and overpopulation gotten rid of that possibility?

we humans will only face extinction through natural selection... unless some alien race that is vastly more advanced than us comes and kills us... even if we kill ourselves through nuclear war it is still natural selection, we did it to ourselves because we didn't evolve enough to make it not happen... just like the pandas are killing themselves by not having enough baby pandas...

[Kenai]

we humans will only face extinction through natural selection... unless some alien race that is vastly more advanced than us comes and kills us... even if we kill ourselves through nuclear war it is still natural selection, we did it to ourselves because we didn't evolve enough to make it not happen... just like the pandas are killing themselves by not having enough baby pandas...

That's not how natural selection works at all. Natural selection involves NATURE, thus the "natural", deciding what does and does not die...usually over hundreds of thousands of years and several climate/ecosystem changes, if not longer. Even when natural selection does occur to a species, then it is usually (90% of the time) because that species has been completely replaced by a new one that fills the previous animal's niche in that ecosystem. There's nothing natural about willingly killing ourselves. It is the instinct of all life on Earth, including us, to go on living.

I'm not sure if you are going to read this seriously anyway since you jumped to "we kill ourselves or space aliens will" pretty quickly but whatever.

[saberon]

If we made them endangered, we should try and save them. Plus, it has provided the world with Panda Porn. How can you say no to Panda Porn?

[HazardYo]

Screw them. We're the only species on Earth who cares about other species to the point where we actively try to prevent their ultimate demise.
Even before us, species went extinct. Over 99% of species that have ever lived, are now gone; that's what nature does. If their time has come, let them go gracefully.

[Nivius]

natural selection is not natural when we humans dont kill em whit our bare hands.

[shockpally]

Where are you getting your information from? 7,725 seems to be a bit high. Are those actually endangered species or just the ones that are in danger of being driven off their home ranges? Does it include species that are naturally low in population?

Post some info or a link to your source.

[saberon]

We should focus less on saving some species and focus more on wiping out certain species. Like Cane Toads. Otherwise, 20 years from now, they will be ruling Australia.