11 Extinct Animals That Have Been Photographed Alive

reply to post by russ212


Never said it is by man. I also believe climate change is natural.

Great thread. Ecology did not really become a "science" until DNA genetics was developed just a few decades ago. Even the main ecological text book by Odum was funded by the Atomic Energy Commission -- not exactly a pro-ecology organization! In other words for there to be science you have to be able to model distinctions with mathematics. But even still there are debates about how to differentiate species -- comparing morphology to DNA modeling. Ecology, by its nature, can not really be a science based on rational thinking.

Nevertheless there's a big difference between a species going extinct and ecological collapse. While it's true that humans are just part of Nature, in ecology it's well known that species have their populations climax and then collapse. That is indeed what is happening with humans as well -- in terms of Nature humans are no different than yeast cells -- when we use up all our resources then we will collapse.

But scientists have, ironically, documented that the current rate of species extinction is faster than any previous global collapse of species -- any previous Natural ecological destruction. This is, of course, ironic, because the very scientists measuring the rate of extinction are also CAUSING the extinction which they are measuring -- the technology used to make the measuring is adding to the rate of extinction.

This paradox is called the "macro Heisenberg Effect" but it's really not taken seriously by scientists since quantum collapse does not enable any "macro" classical effects -- whereby the rational measurement changes the objective result of the measurement itself.

In fact if you read Professor Robert Nadeau's book "Environmental Endgame" he focuses the science of "quantum chaos." The reason that humans can not prove that global warming is caused by humans and not some solar system change is because that the modeling of ecology is so complex is it only derived from the computer iterations -- not from any rational mathematics.

Professor Steve Strogatz, an expert in quantum chaos mathematics, makes this same point in the Edge journal interview of scientists (by Brockman) -- in effect -- mathematics is no longer a rational pursuit yet it's the foundation of all of science.

So, paradoxically, whether humans are causing global warming or whether it is Nature can never be solved by humans anyway! Or, in other words, the problem is not humans, but rational thinking itself. That's why the ecological crisis is denied by modern humans -- it undermines rational thinking itself and that is a much greater threat to civilization then using up all our resources.

Ecology teaches that some species are "indicator species" which means that if they go extinct they take down the whole ecosystem with them -- "capstone species" is another term for this. But even this role of species is debated in ecology -- because, again, "quantum chaos" is now considered the norm for modeling ecology -- whereas before there were "climax" ecosystems considered the stable norm for ecological evolution. Now it's considered that ecology is just constantly changing and any destruction is part of the natural cycle.

The irony being that neither ecology nor humans are in charge -- the machines have taken over since quantum chaos is dependent on the computer iterations to make the policy decisions and the computer iterations actually create the mathematical modeling itself.

Originally posted by SuperSlovak
reply to post by December_Rain

 

something tells me your a member of PETA or aspire to be one. id steer clear of them if i was you.

None to both. I hate animal cruelty.
Second line.

Originally posted by yadda333
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

Are humans not natural?

Nature paved the way for our existence. Surely nature would not allow its creation to destroy it. Why would nature allow such a vile (as some of you have declared in a couple of threads) species to exist?

If we ever do anything to the point of actually putting nature in jeopardy, then nature will correct it by some means.

But as I've said in another thread very similar to this one, the human race is only a blink in the life of the Earth. We are overdue for an extinction level event. Take it even farther and the Earth will eventually be swallowed by the Sun going Red Giant.

All of the save the planet crap will have been for nothing.

Well, its going to be quite some time (about 100 million to a billion years) until the sun goes red giant so really isn't it worth saving in the meantime?

Lets say you get some horrible debilitating disease that will kill you in the most horrific and unmerciful manner.

What if the cure to that disease lies in the abdomen of some random endangered fly laying eggs on a dead lemurs buttocks? Wouldn't you want to keep that fly around a bit longer?

What if the only thing that can save you from a burning building is a robot designed from geckos? What if our alternative energy source lies in a rare type of grass? What if the cure for cancer lies in some tree growing rain forest flower that we just annihilated?

We loose more than just an animal when a species goes extinct. We loose possible knowledge and future innovations.

A very large percentage of the technology we are developing today comes straight from the womb of mother nature and her creatures. Turns out it's the better stuff. Loosing creatures = loosing valuable technology. If you want a logical non environmental reason to save the animals, there's a good one right there!

[edit on 25-1-2010 by DaMod]

The Quagga looks Interesting....

Are they part horse or Zebra...??


[edit on 25-1-2010 by AndersonLee]

Nice post, its only a matter of time untill more animals are added to this list.....

Interesting thread!

Some time ago I was discussing animal extinction with a friend of mine and we both agreed that, although sad as it seems, animal extinction (even due to human fault) is part of nature.

Most of the animals that ever walked the earth are extinct. Nothing can bring them back and crying about it doesn't help either.

Having said that, I strongly believe that we humans are managing our world in an unsustaining way. If this process continues in this pace we will be the first species on earth to exterminate itself.

Earth however wil survive, life will also. In a few million years after we have parished new life will emerge and the whole circus starts all over again.

George Carlin comes to mind...

edit because it's late..

[edit on 25-1-2010 by BazzeMan]

reply to post by AndersonLee


Hi, mate Qagga is subspecies of Zebra.

It was distinguished from other zebras by having the usual vivid marks on the front part of the body only. In the mid-section, the stripes faded and the dark, inter-stripe spaces became wider, and the rear parts were a plain brown. The name comes from a Khoikhoi word for zebra and is onomatopoeic, being said to resemble the quagga's call.

You will find more details about it here.

well the quagga to me looks almost exactly like the Okapi, which looks a mixture between giraffe and horse

Originally posted by russ212
Yeah, humans are evil. We are killing off animal species. We are the only thing to cause animal extinction on earth except for; volcanos, asteroids, tidal waves, drought, flood, ice age, and the end of ice ages.

So that makes it Ok does it? Last time I looked tidal waves and the rest didn't have the capacity to choose, unlike Humans. We choose to be morons.

The flora and fauna on this planet is currently being driven to extinction at a rate that counts this age as an "extinction event". We are that moronic!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by l neXus l
well the quagga to me looks almost exactly like the Okapi, which looks a mixture between giraffe and horse

Actually Okapi is closely related to Giraffe. Also Okapi has stripes on it's legs only whereas Quagga's stripes were on head going to shoulder and upper body.



You will find more info about it here.

reply to post by Silenzio


What makes us different is that we have a soul, the ability to make decisions.

You are speaking in circles in this post. If we are no better than animals, it is okay for me to marry a woman that has children, kill and eat those children like lions often do. I should be held no more accountable than the animals.

We are better than the animals on earth, imo. Our lives are more important. If you believe otherwise you should move out of your house, live in the wild and try to survive with no technology, because like it or not your lifestyle contributes to the extinction of animals.

reply to post by malcr


Speak for yourself. I don't believe we have a choice. It is either survive, or go extinct ourselves. Are you willing to let your children starve to death to save a few plants and animals. I am not, and I don't expect anyone else to.

Our population has exploded. Not because we are morons, but because we have children and our children have children, and we want them to have food.

You liberals see your own little world and say "everyone can live like me, I don't hurt the eviroment"

I say BULL CRAP. Every little thing in your house, every luxury you have, from the keyboard you typed your post on, to the tv you watch, and the food you eat has an eviromental cost.

Grow up, take responsibility for your choices, and don't hold others to a standard you can not hold yourself too.

Liberals are the most oppressive people on earth. You want people in other countries to be more enviromentally friendly and save the animals, but you are not willing to sacrifice, truly sacrifice.

reply to post by russ212


Well I want my children to have oxygen in the world of tomorrow. Besides who's to say if we F' this planet up enough to make it unlivable for the plants and animals do you really think we will be able to survive in a world where nothing else can? What happens if your kid gets cancer 20 years from now and the only cure lies in an already extinct species of plant.

You want to destroy possible innovations that could do far more for our species than you could imagine?

You say we destroy to survive, I say we save to survive. I would much rather have my kids grow up on a lush world full of life than the barren remains of what was once a pretty neat planet. You really want to leave a barren wasteland for your children?? I find that hard to believe....

If it is so, it will be no one but you that your children blame!

Originally posted by russ212

We then need to stop all production and become nomads again.

I do agree that we need to take care of the animal kingdom to the best of my ability. But, I would kill every animal other than those we depend on for our survival if it meant I could save 1 human life.

Originally posted by russ212
What makes us different is that we have a soul, the ability to make decisions.

I agree with the top sentence, but I think you are a bit wacked on the last one. I would kill millions of humans before I would kill 1 animal. There are so many worthless humans out there, the Elite are the top of the list, but there are NO worthless animals, a few insects maybe but no animal is worthless. I guess you would have to witness firsthand a wolf hunt, or swim in the ocean with sharks are come across a bear in the woods to get the idea. Great experiences, far better than listening to idiots ramble on in the bar!!!!

And I am not a member of PETA, those people are just crazy.

And if you think animals have no soul, you better do some research, every living thing, including trees and grass, have souls. To think otherwise is ignorant and arrogant. And I do not have children, I made a wise choice, not that there is anything wrong with children, just my choice.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by daddio]

reply to post by DaMod


What you just said makes absolutly no sense. I am saying that we are all to blame. At least I am man enough to take responsiblity for.

What are you doing to save the planet, recyling Don't make me laugh. If your are serious about saving the enviroment do something about it. I am just tired of hearing you liberals whine about how evil man is, how horrible we are to the enviroment, and then expecting someone else to pay to fix it. Wanting someone else to sacrifice their way of life so that you don't.

If you want to blame someone for destroying the planet take a look around you house. Look at the diapers you put on your children. We are all to blame.

But that does not make us evil. That just means we are trying to make the best possible life for ourselves, our family and our children.

And for your information, it will not be my children blaming me. It will be my great great great great great grandchildren if we continue on exactly the path we are on.

So stop complaining and go live in a freaking hut in the jungle, survive off the land for a few years like indiginous people, then tell me if you give two s***s about a tiger going extinct.

reply to post by daddio


So you know, I have. I go hiking every weekend, and I have also traveled quite a bit. I love nature, but I believe that humans are more important in the grand scheme of things.

But you are right, I would love to see elitest go away for ever. They can take the liberal wimps with them too.

reply to post by DaMod


I think you make some good points. You'll have to forgive me, but I am just hopelessly pessimistic for the most part.

As of right now, I will stand by my position on this subject and continue to declare "saving the planet" as a monumental waste of time. I'll probably change my mind several times as time goes by though.

I really think this is way too complex of an issue to take a stance to one extreme or the other. You could probably say that about most things in life, but it certainly holds true here.

One of the smartest philosophers of all time was Ludwig Wittgenstein. He was the smartest because he stood right in the middle! There was no way to pin him down to anything. Does our reality determine our perception of it, or does our perception determine our reality? Wittgenstein would say it could be both. And that is Freaking brilliant!

It just seems rather hypocritical to slander our species for trying to take over the world, and then turn around and try to play "Nature/God".

I just think we should sit back and let things happen. I guess if that means trying to save the planet, then so be it! So, I guess I'll just take a stance right in the middle! Sometimes we should save the planet, and sometimes we should let it burn!

People probably think I'm a walking contradiction because I'm Libertarian/Conservative but defend the endangered species act and such. I just find it a shame that so many species have gone extinct since humankind has been civilized. I mean some of these creatures are beautiful and fascinating, some you would expect out of a fantasy/science fiction novel. Who knows maybe someday we can find a way to clone them back into existence. Good thread,

S&F my friend!
Great thread!

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention, but I am sad for all the wonderful species that has left this plane. Maybe its for the better of them innocent beings.