COMMENTS:
Aren't humans sometimes responsible for extinction?
^yes
Extinction happens far more that it should, ballot #132325, and we're the cause of pretty much 100% of extinctions today. Before industrialism, on average, for every 400 years one species would go extinct. So the question really is, she we be stopping extinction? Or should we just sit back and let the fittest survive.
Unlike the theory of creationism, the fact of evolution has no laws to it. But each and every action on an evolutionary level, no matter how short, long, large, or small, has a consequence.
I would contend that every single species on earth that is facing extinction has- at least in part- human development and exploitation to blame.
Oops, yeah, pretty much what spleen said. I would, however, add that "survival of the fittest" is irrelevant in the face of man. It's more "survival of the modest" whereby any animal whose home is, by man's standards, an unattractive one, will likely be spared. Will it benefit us to pillage this pristine tropical forest? What about this dry and barren scrub? I'd wager the forest dweller has a plow in his front yard when he returns from his daily trip to the river.
This, I think, is largely the issue. Whether it be by plowing an animal's forest or by then breeding him in a steel cage to "save his kind," we are tipping the evolutionary scale. I don't think there's anything we can do about it one way or the other. Not a human on earth has seen this planet in balance, so we have no template to turn to in trying to restore it. Ugh, ramble, ramble, ramble, lol.
Voted : Stop all extinction because we know best
We cause 99.9 percent of it.
^ThisIsNate, I'd have to disagree with you there about "survival of the modest". As Darwin said, "It is not the strongest of the species that survive but the ones most responsive to change." Looking at out societies today we share our homes with an abundant amount of various species such as sparrows, seagulls, ants, flies, squirrels, raccoons, beavers and even bears. These animals never used to live the lifestyles they do now. They have adapted to urbanization and industrialization. Seagulls, ants, flies, bears and raccoons may not live side by side to us but they base a fair percentage, up to 40%, of their diet around human waste, whether it be found in landfills, garbage cans or parking lots. Sparrows and squirrels rely on bird seed in the suburbs and nuts from the trees some plant around their yards and base their homes around such trees or even in the rafters of man made structures.
That's a very good point spleen. "Survival of the modest" I suppose would have to be limited to pre-development, which unfortunately applies to very little of the globe anymore.
You're definitely spot on about adaptive wildlife. Urban wildlife management is booming, and if you are looking to get into wildlife work, it's a good place to start. Unfortunately, the focus right now is almost exclusively on control and removal. Hardly management so much as pest control.
You know what's the funniest though? And this happens ALL the time. Someone will feed deer, turkeys, whatever in their backyard... you know, apples, seed corn, etc. Now one day a curious deer munches on an ornamental shrub and it's all the sudden "WHY ARE THERE SO MANY DEER??! Somebody do something!" Now of course, the first response is to cull them, but deer feeding homeowners cry foul. Nobody wants more deer, so they can't be re-located either. So apparently, we're supposed to shit a brick of money so we can afford to sterilize them. Or wave our magic wands so they disappear into deer paradise.
But yeah, back to the point you made, we've introduced a new ecosystem, the concrete jungle. It's the least attractive of them all, but some do call it home nonetheless.
|
