Negativland
Pope Handsome VII
I think the extinction of species is about 10000x more likely to be in opposition to human interests than biodiversity.
Biodiversity - do you give a fuck?
- Thread starter In Bloom
- Start date
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
I think made up numbers and vauge waffling about the same are in opposition to all of our interestsNegativland said:
Negativland
Pope Handsome VII
OK so when is it beneficial for us to do something which leads to a species being wiped out?
DarthSydodyas
rusting
I have bio-diversity in my fish tank. Without it, I'd have to do more water changes. 
scifisam
deleted
Pandas are protected, above all, because they look really cute. The other reasons (we caused their endangerment, you never know what benefits they might bring to other species, we can protect them so why shouldn't we) are secondary). They appeal to our instinctual response to look after creatures with big eyes and heads bigger than their chubby bodies - like babies.
In this sense, they make fucking great poster children for wildlife protection. Many people (particularly kids) who don't care about the loss of species of lizard or fish or frog or whatever animals will get drawn in by the 'cute panda' and donate money, which doesn't actually have to go to pandas. Pandas save animal lives by being cute enough to encourage people to donate money to save other, less adorable, animals.
I say all this assuming that you don't actually think biodiversity in itself is stupid, because that would be stupid.
In this sense, they make fucking great poster children for wildlife protection. Many people (particularly kids) who don't care about the loss of species of lizard or fish or frog or whatever animals will get drawn in by the 'cute panda' and donate money, which doesn't actually have to go to pandas. Pandas save animal lives by being cute enough to encourage people to donate money to save other, less adorable, animals.
I say all this assuming that you don't actually think biodiversity in itself is stupid, because that would be stupid.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
1. Panda's are crap. They exist on one type of food that they have to eat immense quantities of because it's crap nutritionally and they have a really low birthrate and high infant mortality rate. An animal that is so hyper adapted to one single environment and with such a diet is an evolutionary dead end so yes, it's a crap species.
2. There is an argument to be had about biodiversity, especially in the light of global warming. Life has existed in as great a diversity of animals under many different climatic conditions on earth; more to the point after every single mass extinction event (and the smaller ones) there has been an incredible explosion of life where, because most of the ecological niches have been emptied following environmental changes, the whole evolutionary field is 'at play' with new species (and older ones able to adapt) - if it hadn't happened at least once before we wouldn't be here!
So while preserving biodiversity is a laudable goal, there is an argument that as the environment changes preserving failing species can actually prevent the evolution of new species that are better adapted to a hotter/colder/drier/wetter climate - don't forget as we change the environment flora and fauna are adjusting to it - there is, for example, a breed of coral algae that is begining to thrive in the hotter oceans (New Scientist from a while back).
My point is not to simplistically slag biodiversity preservation off, just that to fetishise it as some do seems to me to be very human, but also very off the path when it comes to evolution - die backs are common features of eco-systems and environmental change is, historically speaking, a common feature of this planet's development. Life has successfully seen off at least 4 major natural 'attempts' and in each case has sprung back and populated the planet with a magical variety of species.
Death is a part of the cycle of life, and while the current issues with climate change may be partly/mainly caused by human activity, that doesn't alter the fact that attempting to preserve life too specialised to cope with even minor environmental changes is life that would eventually fail anyway - evolution is a force beyond morals and, for the moment, human tinkering much beyond our own species ability to use technology to adapt to different environments.
2. There is an argument to be had about biodiversity, especially in the light of global warming. Life has existed in as great a diversity of animals under many different climatic conditions on earth; more to the point after every single mass extinction event (and the smaller ones) there has been an incredible explosion of life where, because most of the ecological niches have been emptied following environmental changes, the whole evolutionary field is 'at play' with new species (and older ones able to adapt) - if it hadn't happened at least once before we wouldn't be here!
So while preserving biodiversity is a laudable goal, there is an argument that as the environment changes preserving failing species can actually prevent the evolution of new species that are better adapted to a hotter/colder/drier/wetter climate - don't forget as we change the environment flora and fauna are adjusting to it - there is, for example, a breed of coral algae that is begining to thrive in the hotter oceans (New Scientist from a while back).
My point is not to simplistically slag biodiversity preservation off, just that to fetishise it as some do seems to me to be very human, but also very off the path when it comes to evolution - die backs are common features of eco-systems and environmental change is, historically speaking, a common feature of this planet's development. Life has successfully seen off at least 4 major natural 'attempts' and in each case has sprung back and populated the planet with a magical variety of species.
Death is a part of the cycle of life, and while the current issues with climate change may be partly/mainly caused by human activity, that doesn't alter the fact that attempting to preserve life too specialised to cope with even minor environmental changes is life that would eventually fail anyway - evolution is a force beyond morals and, for the moment, human tinkering much beyond our own species ability to use technology to adapt to different environments.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Well actually no my point isn't 'tough like sunshine' fruitloop - my point is that those who fetishise biodiversity with current species don't seem to be considering all the potential outcomes - and there are other examples of green policies that have been shown to be lacking after 20 or 30 years of being argued over and blindly supported.
My point is that preserving current species biodiversity while the planet is undergoing what appears to be fundamental climate changes could have unintended negative consequences for future species (or indeed, for the current species in the future) and that while I support much of the action happening at the moment, it's not the clear cut issue that it's portrayed as.
Which is somewhat different to your somewhat pithy putdown.
But yeah, while there are ways of restoring habitat (wetlands, salt marsh replacement for example) if the climate keeps changing as it is, and keeps getting hotter species die off becomes inevitable despite all the effort put in.
I mean what would be happening if we were heading the opposite way into an ice age (which still might happen) - hardly going to be in a position to maintain massive biodiversity then are we?
My point is that preserving current species biodiversity while the planet is undergoing what appears to be fundamental climate changes could have unintended negative consequences for future species (or indeed, for the current species in the future) and that while I support much of the action happening at the moment, it's not the clear cut issue that it's portrayed as.
Which is somewhat different to your somewhat pithy putdown.
But yeah, while there are ways of restoring habitat (wetlands, salt marsh replacement for example) if the climate keeps changing as it is, and keeps getting hotter species die off becomes inevitable despite all the effort put in.
I mean what would be happening if we were heading the opposite way into an ice age (which still might happen) - hardly going to be in a position to maintain massive biodiversity then are we?
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Couldnt you gm a panda in to being a small house friendly pet like a cat only cuddlier and less likely to look down on you ?
.
More fun than some dodgy wheat .
.More fun than some dodgy wheat .
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
And cos being B&W meant that the new WWF didn't have to use colour in it's logo - B&W being cheaper to print.
500 million years since the rise of the first vertebrates, and we're on course to wipe out a third of all species in the next 50. Maybe you're happy being the cause of the next great catastrophic extinction, but it's a legacy I'd rather avoid.
In any case, some of the changes that we're making to the enviroment seem to be further and faster than any precedent in geological time - e.g. glacial retreat - and some are entirely new, such as heavy metal pollution in the seas. I think that extrapolation from previous extinction events is probably hopelessly optimistic unless you're a cockroach, in which case the future's looking rosy.
In any case, some of the changes that we're making to the enviroment seem to be further and faster than any precedent in geological time - e.g. glacial retreat - and some are entirely new, such as heavy metal pollution in the seas. I think that extrapolation from previous extinction events is probably hopelessly optimistic unless you're a cockroach, in which case the future's looking rosy.
Louloubelle
Well-Known Member
Fruitloop said:
word
also scientists have just discovered that pomegranite juice stops prostate cancer in its tracks. Jus one example of how a simple plant can halt a terrible disease.
there are countless species that we could use to advance medical science but we're destroying them before we've had a chance to study them.
This is terrible. Obviously
Macabre
digiratti
kyser_soze said:
Its ture that when a dominant species dies out others come in to fill the gap but that isnt the same as what man is doing to the planet. We are the dominant species and we are destroying everything else so there will be nothing to fill in the gap once we've gone. Its like a virus killing its hoast without anywhere else to infect, we're shitting on our own doorstep.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Aside from asteroids hitting the planet and the massive mantle plume activity of course that led to formations like the Deccan Trappes. There have been die backs of over 90% of ALL species on the planet and still the earth has come back - and life came bounding back after that. I don't buy it that human activity is going to return the planet to what some scientists reckon was close to pre-life conditions on earth.
Don't really know much about this but someone told me that there's probably a cure for every human illness and disease around us. Either growing in a rainforest, or underwater, yet to be discovered. But the rich are killing these natural resources, our common treasury, in order to line their own pockets. It doesn't feel right mate.
I suppose the people who are trying to preserve pandas do it because they like animals and particular kinds of animals. It is their interest. Some people climb mountains, others play on the internet or have other activities.
As long as there are people who want to work at saving interesting animals who are at risk then good for them.
If the panda's environment completely vanishes then they will only be able to survive in captivity. This is questionable as to its value. The purpose of saving an animal using an artificial environment in captivity should be in order to at a later stage release it back into the natural environment which itself has meanwhile been protected. Unless this is possible with the panda the exercise although laudable is doomed.
H
As long as there are people who want to work at saving interesting animals who are at risk then good for them.
If the panda's environment completely vanishes then they will only be able to survive in captivity. This is questionable as to its value. The purpose of saving an animal using an artificial environment in captivity should be in order to at a later stage release it back into the natural environment which itself has meanwhile been protected. Unless this is possible with the panda the exercise although laudable is doomed.
H
Louloubelle
Well-Known Member
Callie said:?link?
(are pomegranets extinct now
)
take your pick
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en...ice prostate&spell=1&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn
They're not extinct, but any one of hundreds of thousands of species of plants facing extinction could contain properties that could sure cancera and other illnesses. They're going extinct so quickly that we may never know
Similar threads
