I was reading an article in this months Focus (A British pop. science journal) about extinction and how it can be prevented. Despite all points they were making about trying to prevent extinction I couldn't help but think that it is a natural process and the current rate of extinction is just another chain in the story of life on Earth.

Allow me to explain...

A mass extinction during the Triassic to Jurassic period that occurred 251 million years ago killed off 96% of marine species and 70% of land species. This was caused by a combination of natural disasters wiping a large portion of life out. This sudden change to a harsh environment caused rapid evolution, one product of this evolution was the dinosaurs, they rapidly evolved to suit there new environment by exploiting niches and this was the cause of evolution between Triassic dinosaurs to Jurassic dinosaurs. Essentially only the fittest animals survived this period, it was beneficial.

A second example I would like to bring up is the cretaceous to tertiary extinction, which occurred 65 million years ago when a meteorite hit the Earth and causing another climate shift killing 16% of marine species and 18% of land species. The dust covering the sky killed animals that couldn't cope, one of which was the dinosaurs. This also caused the rapid evolution from reptile to mammal. Some reptiles decided to live underground burrows to survive, this caused a rapid evolution to transitional reptilian-mammals and then later to mammals like us. When mammals re-emerged much of the competition (such as Dinosaurs) had died out and so mammals flourished.

In total there have been five mass extinctions, those were examples of only two. However, we are entering a sixth period of mass extinction on the same level as some of these and we're causing it. Humans changing environments and domesticating animals is causing yet another extinction and causing another period of rapid evolution. In a few thousand years only the fittest species to live in a world ran by Humans will survive, it's inneviatable. 

So with that in mind are humans just the latest link in the chain of mass extinction? This further does to say should we interfere? As previous situations have proved, extinction allows only the fittest to survive and so overall, those that survive are benefited greatly.

Just to make it clear, my view point is that we should still continue to preserve species and not cull thriving species. But scientifically we are just getting in the way of a frequent natural process.

It's all confusing.

Good post Highwaystar, and philosifical cause it touches the question of free will/choice or wether everything is predetermined.

I want to say though that there's a big difference bweteen temproary causes of extinction and permanent causes of of exitincion and thus avoidable cause of extinction.

Those hunters who killed the huge Moa chicken on New Zeeland are gone now, and the seamen who killed that ostritch-like bird who is extinct(forgot the name), and the safari-hunters who made that Quagga-Zebra go extinct, it all could have been avoided. Those species werent necessarily unfit for this world, they were just unfit for the event where man went on in a rage to kill stuff in different parts of the world.

So these species that are now gone forever were only 'unfit' for a very temporary time period of only a hundred or a few hundred years.

Thankyou

I believe the extinct bird you are referring to is the Dodo. Admittedly the causes for extinction are only temporary, but if the Cretaceous to Tertiary extinction had never of occurred then it is likely that the world would still be run by Dinosaurs and we wouldn't have existed. So a temporary cause of extinction can completely change the manner of life. A mass extinction could wipe out a major predator and allow those that it once hunted to survive.

Bleh, you know what I mean lol.

Bump

@OP,

You've pretty much hit on why I have no tolerance for environmentalist who go off the deep end with environment/animals/insects/etc>humans type crap.

But for the most part I would say that intelligently preserving species is all well and good up to the point that you have to tell farmers to stop growing food on their own land to save an insect/bird/etc. Or more generally up to the point that you start putting at risk the livelihood and/or lives of humans directly or indirectly.

Humans do not exist outside of the environment any more than any other animal. We are part of it and our mere existence alters the ecological landscape. People can try to define which impacts are good and bad and how we should change it, but it really doesn't much matter in the end because no matter how we impact the environment we will be good for some species and bad for others.

If anything I think an argument could be made that by preventing natural selection from culling the less acclimated species we are priming the planet for a devastating mass extinction event down the road. It could be very similar to how trying to stop all fires in Yellowstone National Park created one of the biggest and worst fires in recorded history by not allowing small fires to clear away the dry underbrush which would eventually fuel the intense and prolonged blaze. Only in this case the kindling is the animals not suited to the environment that we are sheltering from being cleared away as nature intended.

Honestly, with our current level of cloning technology and prospects for future improvements I think preserving a species should mean taking sufficient DNA samples for later use as needed. There are certainly plenty of other moral questions to that prospect as well however, which sort of highlights the fact that saving/creating species in general will always have the "playing god" issues attached to it. So pick your poison really.

It's easy to see why one would change their opinion on environmentalism when you take in that we are the latest link in the environmental chain and we are pretty much completing a frequent pattern.

As you said intelligently preserving animals would be a good solution and in the end it comes down the moral question of playing god or not.

How's it going dude?

Well this just depends on how you see man in the world. Is he a part of nature or is he above that of nature. Of course if you see him as a natural creature, then everything he does is natural. But if everything he does is outside of nature then you start looking at the positive and negative effects of what he does.

Also goes to the debate of free will/fate as slimebeast brought up. Are we doing this based on it is predetermined or is this something we choose to do.

My view on it, is everything in nature is a resource. We are a part of nature not outside of it. Thus everything we do is done for best survival. We hunt and kill animals for the purpose of survival. We build houses for the purpose of shelter. We make medicine for purpose of survival. We even educate and study numerous amounts of thing in nature for the purpose of survival. At the heart of most things in life aside from the pursuit of pleasure, survival is our main purpose.

So we have to start thinking of what we do is best for survival. Thus for best survival we need to be able to grow food and kill prey. However, is it best for our survival that we kill all the prey? Of course not. We'll have then exhausted that resource. Thus as we except today, primary food sources are "grown" like a vegetable and used to support human necessity of survival. We don't simply kill all the chickens or cows or pigs... we use the resource properly and assure that it is renewable.

However, if I simply looked at it that way, then I'd be very naive. There are numerous other things that we need to think about. Which is why I completely disagree with sqrl in his argument against scientists/environmental scientists. They do years upon years of study on ecosystems and how they interact with each other. Thus they know that when you over hunt (not enough to kill them all) of a certain prey you then weaken one of their predators. If one of their predators doesn't have a food source they start to starve. Also on the flip if you kill too much of a predator then the prey becomes over populated and similar things happen. Even more on a smaller level, such as microscopic, you can destroy the balance of nature. Which is why when humans do things they need to make sure they are acting within that balance... otherwise problems will exist at the top of the food chain.

Which comes to a few other questions... well what about survival of the fittest. Although true, we all know from Darwinian evolution that adapting to changes in the environment take thousands of years to be able to do so. Quick environmental changes cause extinctions. Thus you can go back to the original topic on that.

So when thinking about this kind of thing, make sure you are looking at facts from science and not some hackneyed pathetic political twist on it for their own self-interests. These environmental scientists aren't saying all this because they want to hug trees on a daily basis... for the most part they say these things such that the natural balance of nature isn't offset. Do we need extinction? Well in nature it isn't a great thing, but life will continue. But if humans continue on the trail they are on... they might find themselves being the one to go extinct. Have to act in what is best to survive and make sure we don't upset the balance of nature. You might think affecting things at the bottom of the food chain doesn't hurt us... but it does.


Another thing I'd like to throw out there is, we need to also assess the problem that is human overpopulation. Ask any scientist and they'll say a lot of the issues facing humans right now is over population. The environment simply can't handle how many people there are. Thus eventually these actions will lead to a decline in our populations. If nature can't support us then eventually it will take us all out. Whether it be not enough food, not enough space, or water depletion... eventually we'll go. But as always there will always be something to live on after us... those best fit for the environment. That's what humans have to take into consideration... despite all our intelligence there is nothing stating we are best fit to survive or even adapt to a changing environment. And unless we actually try to work with the "laws" of nature, then we could very well lead to our own demise.

Hmm, I'm going to give this thread a little bump because I think it never got off the ground the first time round.

Yes, variation is good. If one goes extinct now we can always bring them back with genetics.