Tasmanian Devils face extinction

[free4440273]

Premium Link Upgrade
"They may not be as cute as koala, as iconic as kangaroos, or as just-plain-weird as the platypus but Australia would still be a poorer place without the Tasmanian Devil. Sadly the devil is headed for extinction within five years, decimated by a deadly, infectious facial tumour"

 

[Iamforever]

i love the little fuckers, but life goes on. species become extinct. its a fact if life. too bad they are not the bald eagle, or i would care.

 

[ÆGEAN]

lol at above post...so if it was an american ****** someone would care? interesting


yeah it is a shame that they are under threat but the Tasmanian government is the 'greenest' of the 6 states of Australia so i would assume they would not lose such an icon.

 

[rian_evilclown]

i just hope the one in the cartoons is still around

 

[AFA]

i love the little fuckers, but life goes on. species become extinct. its a fact if life. too bad they are not the bald eagle, or i would care.

Oh well, you can't break a link in the middle of a chain and still use the whole chain. Everything like this is connected and it might be years before the effects of the loss are known.

Plankton wouldn't mean a lot to lose either, after all, you can barely see it. Reef systems might as well go too, they're underwater with old tires and other junk that disappears because you can't see that either. :dunno:

 

[free4440273]

^absolutely...the 'butterfly effect'...
Premium Link Upgrade

 

[AFA]

Yes. If you throw your litter in the woods, it's gone! Magic!

 

[Roughneck]

Interesting question:

Do conservation efforts actually work against natural selection? A theorist would rightly posit that by "conserving" and "preserving", human beings are actually interfering with nature's work. Maybe human beings were supposed to **** off everything [and perhaps ultimately die off as a result] - what's the argument that we weren't/aren't supposed to?

Nature dictates that speciation and it's converse, species extinction; is a natural process - dinosaurs (and hundreds of other species) became extinct long before mankind established itself. Often, the "extinction" process was not a global/natural catastrophy (like an ice age) but nature itself at work (for example - elimination of herbivores through epidemic disease leading to dwindling numbers of carnivores which feed primarily on those herbivores).

In other words:

* If dinosaurs were still around today, should we work towards "conserving" them?

* What about bacteria/viruses and their associated vector forms that cause/spread disease? After all, aren't they "life forms" as well? Shouldn't we work towards conserving them? Should we allow mosquitoes to breed (and thus spread disease) or stop the fight against Malaria by letting them continue breeding?


cheers,

 

[thepornguy]

I remember hearing about this some while ago. If I am not mistaken, some healthy tasmanian devils are being shipped off to a nearby island, to sex up and multiply, and thus hopefully be saved from extinction. :helpme:

 

[AFA]

Interesting question:

Do conservation efforts actually work against natural selection? A theorist would rightly posit that by "conserving" and "preserving", human beings are actually interfering with nature's work. Maybe human beings were supposed to **** off everything [and perhaps ultimately die off as a result] - what's the argument that we weren't/aren't supposed to?

Nature dictates that speciation and it's converse, species extinction; is a natural process - dinosaurs (and hundreds of other species) became extinct long before mankind established itself. Often, the "extinction" process was not a global/natural catastrophy (like an ice age) but nature itself at work (for example - elimination of herbivores through epidemic disease leading to dwindling numbers of carnivores which feed primarily on those herbivores).

In other words:

* If dinosaurs were still around today, should we work towards "conserving" them?

* What about bacteria/viruses and their associated vector forms that cause/spread disease? After all, aren't they "life forms" as well? Shouldn't we work towards conserving them? Should we allow mosquitoes to breed (and thus spread disease) or stop the fight against Malaria by letting them continue breeding?


cheers,

I would argue if dumping carcinogens into drinking water is evolutionary, or if Union Carbide walking away after releasing toxic gas in Bhopal, India was for the benefit of species.

Columbus going to the New World carried disease, insects and animals that decimated the natural wildlife. Hawaii is down to something well less than half it's original native flora and fauna.

Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade

There is always some genius that comes up with an organic cure, like feral cats to eat rodents, that also **** off populations of who knows what.

Caulerpa taxifolia a pretty aquarium seaweed was dumped into the ocean and is now crowding out and decimating other native species on which fish rely. It's toxic, and threatens species on a worldwide scale. But if you can't see it, it's not a problem according to a lot of people.

Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade

 

[free4440273]

excellent discussion had here:thumbsup:

 

[Roughneck]

I would argue if dumping carcinogens into drinking water is evolutionary, or if Union Carbide walking away after releasing toxic gas in Bhopal, India was for the benefit of species.

Columbus going to the New World carried disease, insects and animals that decimated the natural wildlife. Hawaii is down to something well less than half it's original native flora and fauna.

Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade

There is always some genius that comes up with an organic cure, like feral cats to eat rodents, that also **** off populations of who knows what.

Caulerpa taxifolia a pretty aquarium seaweed was dumped into the ocean and is now crowding out and decimating other native species on which fish rely. It's toxic, and threatens species on a worldwide scale. But if you can't see it, it's not a problem according to a lot of people.

Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade

Hi AFA,

I never disputed those arguments. I don't deny that mankind has had an influence/role in the disappearance of many species - both of plant, ****** and other kind.

But in all fairness - you have not answered my questions.

Maybe nature intended humans to wipe out multiple species, untimatly culminating in our own extinction. This isn't the first time the Earth has seen massive "extinction" of species - it has happened regularly in it's past. What's more, multiple extcintions of "dominant species" have occured as well - but "life" on Earth has gone on.

And if nature didn't intend for man to wipe out large species - what about bugs, insects and rodents that help spread disease? What about bacteria and viruses that essentially cause the diseases? Since we are talking about "life" and "species" - don't these "species" deserve protection? Preservation? Shouldn't we stop using antibiotics and vaccines?

To go back to my old argument: Would we preserve/conserve 70 ton carnivorous dinosaurs if there were still alive today? Let a T-Rex wander freely? Ok, forget the T-Rex: how about letting tigers and lions wander freely "in their natural habitat"? Surely this can only be beneficial to them, right?

Or does "preservation" only apply to "things than don't harm man"? Which is a two faced argument by the way, because we are also involved in the business of "conserving" natural, known predators of man.


Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying "**** and poison 'em all! Let God sort 'em out".

But shouldn't it be equally valid to question "Why is conservation the way to go? Wouldn't that be interference of nature's work?"

cheers,
R. (Dusting off my old college ethics papers here)

 

[AFA]

I'm more of the thinking that nature is like a perpetual motion machine that will run forever barring unforseen circumstances. Not something with a mind or personality of it's own. For some, that might even imply the existance of God to have a plan in mind. Society seems to want to live for the day, and ignore warnings about future damage caused by it's misuse of the Earth.

The machine will operate as long as it can on it's own, but like a fine clock mechanism, requires a significant blow it can't overcome to go into non-existance. There are scenarios that mankind can't avert that would spell the end of life as we know it, and those that are avoidable it seems should be avoided "like the plague".

 

[D-rock]

A theorist would rightly posit that by "conserving" and "preserving", human beings are actually interfering with nature's work. Maybe human beings were supposed to **** off everything [and perhaps ultimately die off as a result] - what's the argument that we weren't/aren't supposed to?

You would have to ignore the fact that the main purpose of almost every living thing that has ever existed has seemed to have been to procreate and continue its existence. Human beings would seem to be no different. Humans purposely and rationally doing something that hurts their existence would seem counterproductive in doing that.

Maybe nature intended humans to wipe out multiple species, untimatly culminating in our own extinction. This isn't the first time the Earth has seen massive "extinction" of species - it has happened regularly in it's past. What's more, multiple extcintions of "dominant species" have occured as well - but "life" on Earth has gone on.

And if nature didn't intend for man to wipe out large species - what about bugs, insects and rodents that help spread disease? What about bacteria and viruses that essentially cause the diseases? Since we are talking about "life" and "species" - don't these "species" deserve protection? Preservation? Shouldn't we stop using antibiotics and vaccines?

You talk like nature is a sentient being. Should I take it that is your point of view? Do you really think nature can have a want? I think mankind, and mankind’s intelligence, has risen to a point where it above nature in some respects and it's own actions have hurt it where it wouldn't otherwise. I have no problem taking actions that restrict mankind’s harmful effects of nature that it itself put there.

On the other point, I think generally we have to be careful when we mess around with a natural order that is in fact natural. Most of what humans do anymore in not "natural" in my opinion. We don't always know what's best for nature with respect to us and other things. Killer bees would be a good example to that. I'm also sure a lot of living things we think are insignificant are a lot more important than we think which is why we should care more about them so we don't find out the hard way when they are gone. Generally as long as it's well thought out I have no problem with people using nature to the betterment of mankind (and by mankind I mean everybody not just a few where everybody else gets screwed) when it doesn't hurt the delicate balance that allows it to operate in the first place.