Does it matter if species become extinct?

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Let the animals pass away in quiet dignity; we have meddled in their affairs enough.

And as for pandas, they wouldn't think twice about pulling the trigger on us - just be thankful that we have the upper hand.
 

hamarplazt

100% No Soul Guaranteed
Another question that springs to mind - what is the 'usefulness ' of the average Guardian journalist? Would the world or humankind be any poorer without them?
This remind me of an episode from my childhood. I complained that I couldn't see any reason wasps should exist, they had no use or purpose and were not good for anything. To which my mother asked me what humans were good for.

Eventually, extinction is always happening, countless species have disappeared and countless will disappear again. The natural world is never static. The problem is when an unnatural large amount of species become extinct because of us. Perhaps the next mass extinction will not come from the earth being hit by a meteor, but from a chain reaction started by us.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Eventually, extinction is always happening, countless species have disappeared and countless will disappear again. The natural world is never static. The problem is when an unnatural large amount of species become extinct because of us. Perhaps the next mass extinction will not come from the earth being hit by a meteor, but from a chain reaction started by us."
But what does unnatural mean in this context?
 
D

droid

Guest
But what does unnatural mean in this context?

Good question - depends how you define 'natural'. In this context I guess it could be something like 'events which occur within the biological/geological processes of the planet earth such as evolution'.

So at a stretch massive volcanic eruptions could be considered 'natural', but a meteor strike or habitat destruction caused by human manufactured pollution could be considered 'unnatural'.

It doesn't follow that simply because humans are the product of 'nature' that all of our actions are 'natural'. By that logic, massive nuclear explosions or traffic jams are 'natural' occurrences.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
It doesn't follow that simply because humans are the product of 'nature' that all of our actions are 'natural'. By that logic, massive nuclear explosions or traffic jams are 'natural' occurrences.

I would argue, though, that they are. But then, I'm something of a fundamentalist on this point.

I think it would be useful to use a phrase like 'non-man-made' instead of 'natural'.
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
Good question - depends how you define 'natural'. In this context I guess it could be something like 'events which occur within the biological/geological processes of the planet earth such as evolution'.

So at a stretch massive volcanic eruptions could be considered 'natural', but a meteor strike or habitat destruction caused by human manufactured pollution could be considered 'unnatural'.

It doesn't follow that simply because humans are the product of 'nature' that all of our actions are 'natural'. By that logic, massive nuclear explosions or traffic jams are 'natural' occurrences.

Aren't they? I'm not sure I buy the weird absolutism that usually comes up when people talk about the 'natural' world...

Habitat destruction caused by humans is unnatural -- so I guess by implication, if caused by animals is natural.
 
D

droid

Guest
So you're saying that if I shoot you (or Vimothy) in the head its a natural occurrence? :)
 
D

droid

Guest
What does it mean to die a 'natural' death? How does that accepted meaning contradict my statement?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
People have a tendency to forget that it's perfectly natural for animals to become extinct, and that it happens all the time - the dinosaurs died out without any help from us, after all (and chances are it was climate change that basically ended the age of dinos - modern palaeontological opinion is that is the big meteorite at the end of the Jurassic basically finished off the last few stragglers). Of course, new species evolve all the time, too. And the climate and even the chemical composition of the oceans and atmosphere have changed over time, too.

The main differences with us are:

- that farming and industry coupled with the enormous growth in our population over the last century mean we're causing effects to happen very, very quickly and on a global scale,

- that we're aware of the effects we're having (many of which could be very bad for us) and are to some extent able to predict future trends, or at least extrapolate them a few years down the line,

- that many of us are concerned about habitat destruction and anthropogenic extinction for basically sentimental reasons, which is not to say they aren't good reasons,

- and that by making policies on national and international levels, it may be possible to mitigate some of the worst effects.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
I have to agree - we're part of the natural world and all our actions are too, including ones that are large-scale or unusual.
 
D

droid

Guest
So you would agree that the Holocaust was simply an act of nature?
 
D

droid

Guest
I'm going to shoot you in head and use this thread as evidence in my trial... 'act of nature M'lud.. he said so himself'... ;)
 
Top