Does it matter if species become extinct?

IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
Well, I like animals well enough from a distance (used to be quite into bird watching as a child) but I've never felt the urge to get a cat or a dog or anything. My girlfriend once said that babies are rubbish but at least they grow up into people whereas dogs just act like babies forever, running around shouting and shitting and occasionally biting people. I'm basically too selfish to get something I have to look after (dog, cat or child) but I reserve the right to be happy that there are animals out there right now going around existing and doing animally things.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Rich, I know for a fact you prefer your animals close enough to reach them with a knife and fork, or failing that your greasy mits.
 
E

elgato

I just dont know
many times this thread has caused me to cover my mouth and suppress my laughter at work, very amusing!

also very interesting. as an erm environmentalist, this subject is often on my mind and i still don't really know why i feel how i do, or whether i have good reason to
 
T

tryptych

waiting for a time
nomadthesecond said:
To answer the original question:

I think it's important to remember that species are often very important components of ecosystems, and as such, their absence(s) can unfortunately lead to severe imbalances in an ecosystem that can in turn lead to further endangerment and eventual extinction of other species within that ecosystem. Many ecosystems overlap, as well, making one ecosystem's balance contingent on many others'.

The argument for preserving species to the best of our ability really hinges on deciding which species endangerment is caused by human damage to an ecosystem. Some species will of course become extinct and many have without human involvement in their ecosystem. If our industrial advancement is the cause of ecosystem damage and endangerment of a species or species plural, many worry that this will cause a chain reaction that will cause many species that would not have become endangered without the damage caused by humans to their ecosystem to become extinct. This will in turn put a huge strain on all ecosystems, and eventually it could mean humans would become extinct...
Click to expand...

This is just regression though - ecosystems, if they fail, will be replaced by new ecosystems. It might take a long time, but why does one ecosystem have greater value than another?

Most of the time these judgements about ecosystems are strictly from a human point of view - i.e. destroyed ecosystem is going to make life harder/untenable for humans, as in Zhao's post upthread, and here. But obviously we're not looking a strictly utilitarian view of species in relation to the continued existence of humanity.

Is there an argument for preserving species outside of their value in supporting the ecosystems that keep humanity alive?

I'm reminded about the dilemma of peat bogs drying out - there has been the assumption that it's important to stop the bogs drying out, to preserve the delicate ecosystems in balance, until recent geological work showed that peat bogs naturally dry out in cycles over time... leaving the dilemma of when to intervene and how much.
 
T

tryptych

waiting for a time
droid said:
So you would agree that the Holocaust was simply an act of nature?
Click to expand...

mixed_biscuits said:
Yes, in that nothing material that is tied to the organic world can be said to lie outside of nature.
Click to expand...

Or not...

41TXAHSTJQL._SL500_AA240_.jpg
 
nomadthethird

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
tryptych said:
Or not...

41TXAHSTJQL._SL500_AA240_.jpg
Click to expand...

I fucking love this book...

Well, I understand that many people only seem to care about laying waste to ecosystems from an anthropocentric point of view, but I'm not talking about that. What would happen to the food supply of animals if several ecosystems collapsed in quick succession? Would there be anymore bees to pollinate (flowers) plants? Without fruits, flowers, and other plants would we have anything to eat, would the atmosphere have the right gaseous balance? Sure, the earth will remain even after all species of animals and plants die out, but why is it ok to accelerate this process (at least without being somewhat cautious as our ability to do so permits)?
 
Last edited:
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
But what's the 'right' gaseous balance for Earth's atmosphere? 'Right' for which kind of creatures? OK, so something so poisonous it kills everything is clearly the 'wrong' balance, but short of that it's a pretty subjective description. It seems to be pretty conducive to humans and other mammals at the moment, but who's to say the reptiles aren't waiting for the chemical composition to swing back in their favour and lead to a dino renaissance? OK, that example's probably bollocks, but you see what I mean...one thing's for certain, an increase in CO2 levels is going to be great for plants. Both what's left of the forests and (interestingly, perhaps) human crop plants.
 
Last edited:
D

droid

Guest
That last point simply isnt true. Most projections show that the increase in temperature caused by increased CO2 will severly effect plant life. For example - the disappearance 87% of all plant life in the Amazon basin doesnt sound too great to me.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
droid said:
That last point simply isnt true. Most projections show that the increase in temperature caused by increased CO2 will severly effect plant life. For example - the disappearance 87% of all plant life in the Amazon basin doesnt sound too great to me.
Click to expand...

Well I was talking about the chemical content of the atmosphere in and of itself, not any climatic changes it brings about. Though of course they're intimately related. Anyway, isn't by far the most pressing threat to the Amazon rain forest dudes with diggers and chainsaws, rather than the climate? By which I mean, the acreage of forest left is, in the short term at least, going to have much more of an effect on C02 levels and the climate than vice-versa.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
"The height of egotism is to fashion oneself an altruistic alter ego"

- Tudor Vasiliu

I'm finding this discussion distastefully organocentric - what about privileging nonlife for once?

I've heard only bad things about the plight of the amethyst. :(
 
Last edited:
scotch wolves

scotch wolves

good manners cost nothing
The Argument For Preserving Species Outside Of Their Value In Supporting The...

tryptych said:
This is just regression though - ecosystems, if they fail, will be replaced by new ecosystems. It might take a long time, but why does one ecosystem have greater value than another?

Most of the time these judgements about ecosystems are strictly from a human point of view - i.e. destroyed ecosystem is going to make life harder/untenable for humans, as in Zhao's post upthread, and here. But obviously we're not looking a strictly utilitarian view of species in relation to the continued existence of humanity.

Is there an argument for preserving species outside of their value in supporting the ecosystems that keep humanity alive?

I'm reminded about the dilemma of peat bogs drying out - there has been the assumption that it's important to stop the bogs drying out, to preserve the delicate ecosystems in balance, until recent geological work showed that peat bogs naturally dry out in cycles over time... leaving the dilemma of when to intervene and how much.
Click to expand...

The thing is it's not like we're just letting biodiversity shrink and looking on. We are actively killing plant and animal species all the time. It's not a question of letting nature take its course, we are affecting the flow of natural history in a dramatic way.

The Earth, as a system, is far more complex than any computer model or statistical curve or whatever. We have no way of knowing whether the beetle we blithely pollute out of existence will have any effect on humanity's future, but considering that extinction is occurring in some hotspots (like the Amazon) at a rate of 500 species per year, we can safely bet that one or two keystone species will get killed off eventually.

Every living thing depends on its ecosystem. The fewer species there are, the more ecological niches go unfilled, the less efficient and resilient the ecosystem becomes. It's not just about human life; it is about life in general.

We have the power to make this planet inhospitable to life as we know it. The more species we kill off, the closer we come to a complete collapse. True enough, a hundred million years after all the plants and animals are dead we may see the emergence of carbon-metabolizing microbes or something, but are you really cool with that?
 
nomadthethird

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
I've said this before on here, but I'll say it again:

If humans don't do anything to curb emissions, retard global warming, etc., it's not the Earth-as-inorganic-matter-only that will ultimately suffer. I'm sick of hearing, "humans are going to destroy the Earth". The opposite is true--if we continue upsetting the balance of ecosystem irreparably, the Earth will destroy us. It will continue on its merry way.

I suppose you could make a case for the Earth being a sum of organic and inorganic processes as parts. Especially if you consider how weather patterns are sort of intermediary, cycling between the influences of organic and inorganic matter upon it.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
nomadthesecond said:
I've said this before on here, but I'll say it again:

If humans don't do anything to curb emissions, retard global warming, etc., it's not the Earth-as-inorganic-matter-only that will ultimately suffer. I'm sick of hearing, "humans are going to destroy the Earth". The opposite is true--if we continue upsetting the balance of ecosystem irreparably, the Earth will destroy us. It will continue on its merry way.

I suppose you could make a case for the Earth being a sum of organic and inorganic processes as parts. Especially if you consider how weather patterns are sort of intermediary, cycling between the influences of organic and inorganic matter upon it.
Click to expand...

Yes, quite. Also, humans are big animals at the top of the food chain, so even taking all our agriculture and technology into consideration, we're in a precarious position ecologically. If things got *really* fucked up, we'd be the ones to risk extinction long before a lot of other creatures. Having said that, I don't think even a total global disaster (short of all-out nuclear war, maybe) would lead to extinction for us, probably more like massive depopulation and destruction of industrial capability which would of course start to mitigate or reverse our impact on (the rest of) the environment.
 
nomadthethird

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
polystyle desu said:
The long roar of the lion heard in Regent Park ...
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?ref=opinion

from the comments ...
' I’ve often reflected that the mammal I most fear meeting on a hike in a remote area is H. sapiens. — EvoDad '
Click to expand...

Humans first, second mountain lions, third tigers, fourth bears.

Black bears are really pretty, though, we get them in the Adirondacks. They ransack your camp and eat all of the sweets, apparently-- I wouldn't know I don't camp much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top