Does it matter if species become extinct?

IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
Deliberately (and admittedly so) provocative article here but is he right?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/08/features.comment

There are 5,487 known species of land mammals, but 1,141 are at risk of extinction, a report has just revealed. That's well over 20%. That's really bad news, I thought. And then I thought again. There are still 4,346 species left, in no danger. Is that not enough? Will the world and humankind be very much the poorer if we lose a thousand or so species? I'm deliberately putting the question in a provocative way because I'm genuinely seeking an answer.
I passionately believe in saving the whale, the tiger, the orangutan, the sea turtle and many other specifically identified species. What I do not accept is the general principle that all species alive today should carry on existing for ever. We have become so attuned to treating every diminution of animals, insects, birds or fish with concern that we have forgotten to explain why we think it so terrible.
I can see three good explanations for our reactions to the endangerment of species. First, the particular appeal of the animal in question: the whale (huge and dignified), the panda (cute), the tiger (majestic and beautiful), various apes (a lot like us). I doubt we would feel the same if hyenas or armadillos were at risk. Secondly, we are rightly angry if the devastation of the species has been caused by humans, whether by way of fishing, pollution, deforestation or urbanisation. Third, the dearth of some species can lead to the disruption of a food chain, and thus affect the health and numbers of other species in the chain. But this doesn't resolve my confusion.
Many species at risk are very close to other species that are not at risk; the differences are so small that only the scientists have any interest in them. My main reason for doubting that all species are essential is that so many are completely unknown to us. Scientists have told us that they exist, and we may have caught a glimpse of a few of them on wildlife programmes, but they are otherwise never seen by us, and we know nothing about them. How many mammal species can you think of? Can the remainder be that important? Can their loss matter that much, to you or to the world? Of course we must fight hard to retain as many species as we can; but it isn't a tragedy if we lose quite a few along the way.
Click to expand...
Any thoughts?
 
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
My fear is that the only way to find out if a species is important is to let it become extinct, at which point it is too late to do anything about it.

"Cow never know the use of him tail til the butcher chop it off"
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"My fear is that the only way to find out if a species is important is to let it become extinct, at which point it is too late to do anything about it."
Click to expand...
Good point but I personally think that even if a species is in fact utterly useless in all measurable ways there is still merit in saving it simply for the sake of saving it. It's kind of strange to think of species that became extinct before humans existed but obviously it's too late to do anything about them - although it's always exciting when something thought extinct turns up - is it a bad thing that they no longer exist?
I find the idea of animals like Lonely George incredibly poignant even though I realise that it's projecting a human personality on to a tortoise to believe that he has any grasp of the fact that he's the last one (although wasn't there a hope that he may have successfully mated recently with a closely related animal?). I'm sure I remember reading something similar about the last of a particular type of seabird that flies around looking for a mate - every year it would have flown around and presumably been unable to register anything other than "no mate this year" but there is something very sad about its unknowingly hopeless task that would have finally ended in the last of the species and the species itself petering out somewhere unknown.
On the other hand I think it's known (or believed to be known) where the last dodos or tasmanian tigers met their end and for me that final, irrevocable moment has a terrible kind of significance as well as a sadness associated with it.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I remember an A. A. Gill piece in the Times a few years ago, the gist of which was "Let's face it, the reason pandas are almost extinct is because they're rubbish."
 
matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
IdleRich said:
Good point but I personally think that even if a species is in fact utterly useless in all measurable ways
Click to expand...

this is the mistake berlins makes- why are we measuring animals 'usefulness'? animals exist on this planet and their right to do so goes beyond their usefulness to us.
 
Grievous Angel

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
Pandas ARE rubbish. They are absolutely fucking useless. They have evolved themselves into a corner. It is almost impossible for them to survive even when their habitat is not threatened, and they have difficulty reproducing on their own. They will die out in the wild.

This is not true of most other mammal species.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"this is the mistake berlins makes- why are we measuring animals 'usefulness'? animals exist on this planet and their right to do so goes beyond their usefulness to us."
Click to expand...
I dunno though, do animals have rights? I mean, lots of animals became extinct before humanity existed, is it possible to say they had a right to exist? What about animals that exist now and are threatened with extinction, not by humans but because of other animals or whatever - should they be saved?
 
matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
IdleRich said:
I dunno though, do animals have rights? I mean, lots of animals became extinct before humanity existed, is it possible to say they had a right to exist? What about animals that exist now and are threatened with extinction, not by humans but because of other animals or whatever - should they be saved?
Click to expand...

ok, their right not to be made extinct by us (or if you really hate the 'right' concept- our responsibility to them goes beyond thier usefulness to us)
 
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
matt b said:
ok, their right not to be made extinct by us (or if you really hate the 'right' concept- our responsibility to them goes beyond thier usefulness to us)
Click to expand...

Except if you are that panda-murdering bastard Paul Meme.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"ok, their right not to be made extinct by us (or if you really hate the 'right' concept- our responsibility to them goes beyond thier usefulness to us)"
Click to expand...
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I agree with you, I just want to know exactly why I do. I think that, for all his failings, is probably what Berlins is trying to do as well by playing devil's advocate.
 
D

droid

Guest
Oh - and bio-diversity is undoubtedly a good thing for multiple reasons - not to mention the food chain/cycle of existence. There is a bound to be a tipping point where enough individual extinctions will lead to destruction of the whole system.

Lets also not forget the concept of cherishing life for life's own sake.

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?
 
Grievous Angel

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
Panda fur.

Excellent insulating material.

Apparently the air source heat pump we're looking at is made from panda bones.

Baby ones.
 
matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
john eden said:
Except if you are that panda-murdering bastard Paul Meme.
Click to expand...

"we’re building this big house in Sheffield. If things go to plan it’ll be finished in October and I’ll have a lot of rooms to paint."

he's going to blend dead pandas and paint the resulting liquid on the wall?! fuck me.

colour will be a fashionablly cosmopolitan grey.
 
M

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
Grievous Angel said:
Pandas ARE rubbish. They are absolutely fucking useless. They have evolved themselves into a corner. It is almost impossible for them to survive even when their habitat is not threatened, and they have difficulty reproducing on their own. They will die out in the wild.
Click to expand...

Nah mate pandas are wicked dossers. Why live in the wild when you can have human slaves to build you shelter and serve you food? They're a higher power them bears.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
When all's said and done, it's humans that are going to either destroy or not destroy this or that habitat. If people think it's important, then it's important, and if they don't, then it isn't. I think the fact that people are sentimental about certain animals is reason enough to try (within reason) to avoid causing their extinction. That once they're gone, they're gone for ever, has to be taken into account too. It doesn't have to just be a utilitarian argument based on ecosystems and how the extinction of a certain species could affect humans.

But yeah, fuck pandas.
 
Z

zhao

there are no accidents
what the fuck is this lunatic out of touch idiocy.

ecosystem??? balance??? HELLO?!?!?!?!?!?!

if the frogs die out, as they surely are, steadily, increasingly ---- no it does not just mean less cute little colourful things in the world.

IT MEANS MORE MOSQUITOS.

trillions more of them multiplying with increasing rapidity each day.

and it means pestilence. it means billions people dying horrible deaths.

can people really be this stupid???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top