Extinctions are Obsolete

Good morning

I hope everyone is having a great weekend.


While reading through a few recent threads and follow up recent News articles. The thought occurred to me that extinctions are either presently or soon to be an obsolete reality. We in the modern world have the technological, biological and economic means in which to not only bring back Man caused extinctions but to prevent them from ever happening again.


Do we have the collective will and desire?

To me that's the real question. I'd like to make a very big distinction between Earth caused Natural Selection/Extinctions vs Homo Sapien caused. Which leads us to a few more questions, which those would be, exactly how far back do we go and also, how many Homo Sapien caused extinctions are we responsible for and why?

Can we define a few parameters in this thread?

Note: I wouldn't go as far back as the paleolithic period, well, maybe not for most extinct species but some yes. I'd like to stop right here and say I thoroughly understand that we in our modern world do in fact have many more important pressing issues and that resources could be better used to address these. However, we as a species waste much on frivolous endeavors and activities that could be better used imho, to not only address those and other pressing issues but also go towards repairing the damage we as a member of Earth's natural ecosystem have caused.

Now, having said that. I'd recommend bringing back only those species where their natural habitat either still exists or easily reinstated, in addition to that, further, that they can be commercially used to help feed an ever increasing human population. Preferably both.

If we either hunted them or temporarily used/destroyed their habitat which caused their extinction, then we owe it to not only them, ourselves and our preciously fragile ecosystem. I believe most, if not all, viable species have some sort of symbiotic relation to another or to the environment as a whole. *Except Homo Sapien.


You may have a different opinion or agree with mine, this is what this thread is about. Hopefully some here will express those views and thoughts.

Thank you for your time.

Thoughts?

a reply to: SLAYER69

I am just picturing in my mind what damage a herd of mammoth might do to a field of corn or wheat.
I think that you are correct, we probably will be able to bring back a number of species that are no longer with us, as long as qe can find viable DNA .

a reply to: SLAYER69

An excellent topic for discussion. I like that you emphasized the need for an ecological context; species do not exist in isolation. It would be pointless to resurrect Apatosaurs if there were not vast fields of, well, whatever plants they may have eaten, and enormous quantities of the insects that pollinated those plants, and so forth, all up and down the ecosystem. Even reviving the woolly mammoth, now so theoretically possible that it might actually be happening, would pose enormous practical problems.

Another aspect of this bio-engineering is the possibility of constructing entire artificial ecosystems, turning New Zealand into a real life Jurassic Park, for example. But why stop there? Why not create GMO unicorns and dragons and populate an artificial "Middle Earth?" (Talk about geo-engineering!)

a reply to: SLAYER69

Nice thread Slayer, but I'm going to have to disagree with you.

I do not believe extinction can be prevented at this current point in time. All it really takes is one pissed off moment from our sun and we're finished.

I do agree with humans taking many useless endeavors that have no benefit to our growth and continuity as a species. If it were up to me, we should be spending our resources to find ways to expand the human race and its resources by getting off of this planet, but we're not ready for that. To do that means we have to have peace amongst us so that we all believe in a common goal. If anything enables our extinction, it's that we can never find a common goal to work toward.

Getting off of this planet is a no-brainer. It's either that, or learn how to create matter from energy. We may have enough resources today, but it certainly isn't unlimited, and we will be faced with two options: population control or find more resources, both of which will lead to wars as they have in the past.

I don't believe we have what it takes right now to prevent our own extinction.

The only chance, maybe, is if someone freezes themselves in the Seed Vault and waits for help to find them, whenever it evolves again to that point.

We are but one gene mutation, one virus, one bacteria, one solar storm, one super volcano away from a mass or complete extinction. Life is far more precious than we give it the credit for.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I believe I made the distinction between Earth caused Natural Selection/Extinctions vs Homo Sapien caused. I see I left out Space based threats, yet, those are not Homo Sapien caused as outlined in this threads premise.

Of course we have no control over a massive ELE from space or even if the Earth for some yet not understood mechanism does her children in. What I'm advocating is that we as a species can no longer harbor going around eradicating another creature in the name of progress and have a "Well it sucks to be you, pass the remote" mentality.

We no longer have any excuses for being so callous while we have the means to prevent or correct the damage we've caused.

a reply to: SLAYER69

I think Earth will survive a natural extinction event... after it eradicates humans and or other species. Look at the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami as an example of an Earth caused disaster. Nature taking care of things. It is kind of morbid to look at it like this but it is what I believe.

Look at the planets in our solar system, they are still here and surviving.

We do prepare for such things as you said with our DNA and Seed Vaults... but I honestly believe Earth takes care of things on her own naturally as needed.

As far as bringing back a species that we humans have eradicated... well that is a moral dilemma. I believe scientists are working toward this already and it is a very controversial subject.

leolady

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I believe I made the distinction between Earth caused Natural Selection/Extinctions vs Homo Sapien caused. I see I left out Space based threats, yet, those are not Homo Sapien caused as outlined in this threads premise.

Of course we have no control over a massive ELE from space or even if the Earth for some yet not understood mechanism does her children in. What I'm advocating is that we as a species can no longer harbor going around eradicating another creature in the name of progress and have a "Well it sucks to be you, pass the remote" mentality.

We no longer have any excuses for being so callous while we have the means to prevent or correct the damage we've caused.

I totally agree on that point.

We have the ability to make choices to preserve rather than destroy in the name of science or exploration.

However, I still have to disagree on some level because simply, we don't know what we don't know.

By thinking that we are above nature, we are doomed already. There are reasons we just can't understand for why certain species have gone extinct. By bringing them back, that's under the pretense that we first understand why they went extinct in the first place, which would presume that we fully understand nature. I just don't think we're there yet. It would be very easy to bring back an extinct species, only to find out that they breed a bacteria or virus that would wipe out all humans worse than ebola. We just don't know.

So while I agree that we have the means to do more than "Well it sucks to be you....", I do not have the faith that you do, to say that we wouldn't just do more damage like we have demonstrated many times before, especially when we don't understand something fully.

Must you make my brain work so hard on a Sunday of a 3-day weekend?

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

That's why I expressed those extinctions caused by us, and only where their habitat is still viable or easily restored. In the last 200 years we've driven quite a few species to extinction. We are responsible for those. While others, I agree, have gone by the way side all on their own naturally.

a reply to: SLAYER69

We destroy another's habitat in the name of survival. The problem is, what defines surviving? The word can easily be defined in general terms, but when you apply it to the human race, everybody has their own definition. Power and money take over from there. We don't protect ourselves as a species but are focused more on our own self interests.

How do we know humans aren't on some endangered list in the galaxy?

Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Many animals went extinct for a reason. Any time man screws with Mother Nature she shows him who's boss.

a reply to: eisegesis

Earth's human population with over 7 Billion and counting is the largest it's ever been in it's history. Bringing back species such as the Passenger pigeon or some other easily hunted animal is highly unlikely to threaten our further population growth. Our extinction if caused by Natural events beyond our control is tough luck.

The Galaxy rolled the dice and we lost.

This does not imho, excuse us from our preventable destructive behavior and actions nor now not using our corrective abilities/technology from repairing/correcting the damage we've either willingly or ignorantly caused.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Earth's human population with over 7 Billion and counting is the largest it's ever been in it's history. Bringing back species such as the Passenger pigeon or so other easily hunted animals is highly unlikely threaten our further growth. Our extinction if caused by Natural events beyond our control is tough luck.

The passenger pigeon could threaten our current ecological balance. The population was once so vast a single flock could cover the entire sky from horizon to horizon. Such a prolific bird could drive other birds to extinction!

originally posted by: DJW001
The population was once so vast a single flock could cover the entire sky from horizon to horizon. Such a prolific bird could drive other birds to extinction!

It went extinct because we hunted it to that point based on the fact that we thought they were good to eat and very tasty. Which brings it back to what I wrote along the lines that we could commercially use them to feed our ever increasing population.


A species that breeds so prolifically naturally would be a great food source.

No?

a reply to: SLAYER69

They were hunted to extinction by market hunters, so they were apparently good eating.

a reply to: SLAYER69

I'm certainly not against it,but it is a moral dilemma, isn't it?

It's like we are going to play god.
Who are we to decide which animal deserves to be brought back?
Do we know everything or enough to make that decision?

I think we should work on saving our species first and making sure we have a future.
I'm thinking about taking better care of our planet firstly, and then finding a way to move to another planet and solar system once our sun cools down. I know, that's a far way ahead, but still I don't think we should leave everything to the last minute.

Once our species' future is secure via space travel etc, then we can think about bringing extinct creatures back, and then we can decide which ones will be of good use to us humans.

My 2 cents.

Very nice thread. I enjoyed thinking about it.
Thanks for sharing Slayer.
S&F

Wishing you a nice weekend.

if man does not drastically change, our extinction will be rather quick in geological time, compared to the time period for dinosaurs

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: eisegesis

Bringing back species such as the Passenger pigeon or some other easily hunted animal is highly unlikely to threaten our further population growth.

Removing the passenger pigeon left a hole in the environment. As time goes by, everything eventually equalizes. Decades later we discover a way to bring the species back. Except this time, the hole that existed after it became extinct has now been filled by another. There is no chance to put the species back into its original place. The ecosystem has adapted.

Any animal that gets reintroduced back into the ecosystem will not be able to just pick up where it left off. Putting it back to restore order or balance is very unlikely. The impact of them being reintroduced might be as bad as when they became extinct. Timing and placement is key. They can only fill the holes we have left instead of where we originally took them from.

A report by the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management, which represents about 550 vets who specialise in wild animals, describes reintroduction projects as "potential man-made threats to biodiversity". It says that reintroduced species can become "over successful" and take over habitats from other animals and spread disease.

Link

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

That's why I expressed those extinctions caused by us, and only where their habitat is still viable or easily restored. In the last 200 years we've driven quite a few species to extinction. We are responsible for those. While others, I agree, have gone by the way side all on their own naturally.

I guess I'm not delivering on what I'm trying to say so I apologize...

It boils down to this - do we REALLY know if WE caused a species to go extinct, and can we honestly and accurately determine that it was completely human caused and not just humans adding to an already diminishing or dying species at the end of its genetic or evolutionary rope?

I personally don't think so, IMHO.

It usually comes down to survival of the fittest, so if a species is meant to survive, man will not get rid of it.

Just look at cockroaches.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Completely disagree

So, by that logic if we drive Elephants and Rhinoceroses out of existence because we like Ivory/horns it was meant to be simply because they cannot breed as fast as cockroaches?

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Completely disagree

So, by that logic if we drive Elephants and Rhinoceroses out of existence because we like Ivory/horns it was meant to be simply because they cannot breed as fast as cockroaches?

No sir, that is not the logic I am driving at.

I am saying that you cannot be certain that the rhino or the elephant weren't on their way to extinction already, regardless of man's intervention (hunting and killing), because perhaps they were either at the end of their evolutionary chain and could no longer adapt to change, or some other reason that we can't foresee or understand that is related to Darwinism.

It's stretching a bit to say we know it was humans that drove a species to extinction without being certain that there wasn't something else already driving them, where we just became a passenger along for the ride.

I don't think it's our responsibility to prove Darwin wrong by bringing back species that weren't fit enough to survive, even if it was by our own doing.

Sometimes you just have to learn the hard way from your mistakes, which is the example nature very cold-heartedly teaches us over and over again.

For the sake of argument, I used cockroaches as the example because regardless of how resourceful and smart humans are, and no matter how much we hunt and kill them every single day, they are more fit for survival than we are.

~Namaste