Science and Natural History discussion

In the December issue of Conservation Biology you will find an article that reports the findings of a survey that brought up this very question (http://tinyurl.com/7obstyc).
60% of conservationists surveyed agreed that defined criteria are needed to determine whether a species is worth saving. As shocking as it may seem most large conservation charities prioritise efforts on the basis of a checklist system already.

So, what's your opinion? Is such a move justified? Are you concerned about how value will be ascribed to species? What do you think it means that the question of selectively saving species is being talked about at all?

Would you agree with that most species that are under protection typically are iconic (e.g. tiger, panda etc) and are fixed in location (in contrast to let's say Bluefin Tuna)? As you all know they serve as umbrella species as they indirectly protect most species in their habitat by default. It is hard to argue protection for tiny critters (such as a butterfly or a frog species). I am not optimistic about this situation as I share the sentiment of the article you posted. Politics and business in the world are not attuned to the need to protect life as they seemingly are regarded as resources rather than fellow species on the planet. Considering the limited funds and opportunities as well as the survivability of the species we need to focus our efforts. Hots spots such as rain forests and reefs encompass such an enormous number of species so they should get prioritized by default. It is a complex issue.

Perhaps one of the most powerful paths is to bring awareness to all that consumerism is the ultimate threat to all species including ourselves. Our actions in the developed world affect all the habitats in the world ranging from polar seas (CO2 release), coral reefs (ocean acidification, overfishing, agriculture), rain forests (palm oil consumption in baked goods/candies/lotions etc, furniture [mahogany]) and much much more. The ultimate solution rests with ourselves, our consumption patterns and our life philosophy. But, yes, we are in the dire straits as far as I see it!

It is hard to argue protection for tiny critters (such as a butterfly or a frog species).

I find it particularly frustrating that one can make a valid appeal for conservation in the public domain from an aesthetic point of view but not based on the complexities of ecosystem function.

Considering the limited funds and opportunities as well as the survivability of the species we need to focus our efforts.

Should focussing our efforts mean ultimately withdrawing support for certain species? If so, at which point do we draw the line? Were we to simply allow Amur Leopards, for example, to become extinct, are we then justified in protecting other species whose populations reach such perilous lows?

Perhaps one of the most powerful paths is to bring awareness to all that consumerism is the ultimate threat to all species including ourselves.

I'd have to disagree. The ultimate threats to all species are thoughtlessness, species-centricity and selfishness.

As for consumerism - if conservationists were able to advertise effectively enough to influence the buying habits of the general public, it would be possible to turn mass consumerism into a drive for ethically and sustainably-sourced products. If that occurred, it may even result in a long-term decline in consumption. I'm not saying it'd happen of course.

Anthony wrote
I find it particularly frustrating that one can make a valid appeal for conservation in the public domain from an aesthetic point of view but not based on the complexities of ecosystem function.

I completely agree!!! This is a good example by the way (and seemingly quite efficient):
http://www.fubiz.net/wp-content/uploa...
But what do you expect? Our leaders are trained in business and in law (mostly), while the public generally is distanced from a relationship with nature living in an urban setting and/or being affected by poverty and lacking education.

Should focussing our efforts mean ultimately withdrawing support for certain species? If so, at which point do we draw the line? Were we to simply allow Amur Leopards, for example, to become extinct, are we then justified in protecting other species whose populations reach such perilous lows?

I would argue for protecting all, but that is an idealist stance. Do you really think that it is possible to argue for protection in a broad perspective? Nobody would listen to us as we would lack public and political support (as well as financial). The only way this would happen is if the public could see the issue (that is when it hits at home), but most people are so urban so there is no understanding about how the systems will falter until it is too late.

Haaze:Perhaps one of the most powerful paths is to bring awareness to all that consumerism is the ultimate threat to all species including ourselves.

I'd have to disagree. The ultimate threats to all species are thoughtlessness, species-centricity and selfishness.

As for consumerism - if conservationists were able to advertise effectively enough to influence the buying habits of the general public, it would be possible to turn mass consumerism into a drive for ethically and sustainably-sourced products. If that occurred, it may even result in a long-term decline in consumption. I'm not saying it'd happen of course.

I am not sure what you are disagreeing with? Is not consumption simply a reflection of "thoughtlessness, species-centricity and selfishness" ? If consumers actually knew the overall ecosystem effect of purchases things would improve slightly. E.g. a consumer buying hardwood furniture (mahogany or teak) probably does not think at all about that the purchase drives destruction of rain forests thousands of miles away. It is a type of selfishness that is characterized by being unaware about the consequences. It would seem that we are in agreement? It would help if there was political leadership that could instigate the change towards sustainable consumption.

Do you seriously think that it is possible to shape conservation policies and measures that will protect all endangered species and/or systems? I wish for it and work towards it, but I view humanity as being too far gone in its technological madness to change course before the habitats and resources expire. Most of all: a sustainable philosophy is lacking to guide us through long and short term political decisions within our economy. If that changes there would be hope....

What are your thoughts?

I would argue for protecting all, but that is an idealist stance. Do you really think that it is possible to argue for protection in a broad perspective?

Do I think it possible? Yes. Do I think it likely that the arguments would be effective? Unfortunately not (my initial paragraph of questions was merely a device). Nevertheless, I believe that the wider perspective must remain a vital part of the conservation message. It is extremely unfortunate that that message is so often muted by those with conflicting interests who have vastly superior resources to draw upon.

Is not consumption simply a reflection of "thoughtlessness, species-centricity and selfishness" ?

Not at all. Consumption is a reflection of the prevailing cultural paradigm and the amount of disposable income available. Of course one can argue the nature of the paradigm. Such arguments are inherently subjective, hence the following:

It would seem that we are in agreement?

I think it's a semantic debate dealing in smaller details than are strictly necessary here.

It would, of course, be remiss of me to exclude myself from the nebulous group we call 'consumers' as I own a mobile phone, computer, iPod, etc. The vast majority of people in the Western world - conservationists included - lead a consumerist lifestyle in one way or another, More important than demonising general consumerism is encouraging a shift to sustainable and ethical alternatives. Again this is a thankless task given the current paradigm.

Do you seriously think that it is possible to shape conservation policies and measures that will protect all endangered species and/or systems?

I refer you to my previous response: Do I think it possible? Yes. Do I think it likely? Unfortunately not.

I view humanity as being too far gone in its technological madness to change course before the habitats and resources expire.

I have to query how literally you apply the phrase 'technological madness'. You don't need me to go into detail with regards to 'if we'd not developed X then Y would/would not have happened' (which obviously has both positive and negative connotations). I look at our technological process in two ways: 1) the planet would have been much better off if we'd remained a geographically and intellectually limited species; 2) technological advances may prove essential in reducing our dependence on certain resources. You likely disagree with my position but I am all for technological advancement.

a sustainable philosophy is lacking to guide us through long and short term political decisions within our economy.

Absolutely.

Anthony wrote: "I would argue for protecting all, but that is an idealist stance. Do you really think that it is possible to argue for protection in a broad perspective?

Do I think it possible? Yes. Do I think it..."

I regards to the technology: its development is not sustainable. E.g. the turnover of cell phones and other electronic devices is disastrous. The point is that the technology developed (in its "madness") presumes unlimited resources and growth. Considering the size of the human population, its future growth, the momentum of the current use of resources and the lack of sustainable policies I will have to disagree with your statement that it is possible to protect all affected species. It is just semantics in a sense. If we had 500 million people on the planet it would be possible.

What do you think of the urban living aspect disconnecting the bulk of the people in the developed world from nature? Is that an issue that would affect future protection (in your opinion)?

What about leadership? Do you think the current leadership in the developed world has the capacity to implement protection? Here in the US the government barely listens to its scientific advisers!! *shivers*

I regards to the technology: its development is not sustainable.

For most present technologies, that is true.

The point is that the technology developed (in its "madness") presumes unlimited resources and growth.

That is a presumption based on technological development to date which is, of course, not an inappropriate position to take. But what of future technologies? If we achieve stable fusion for example, that would immediately remove the need for coal, gas and fission power plants and (presently) inefficient 'renewables'. If fusion is not possible then there are extremely promising alternatives such as nano-produced carbon sheeting and artificial photosynthesis. I presume you would not want to stop the development of these technologies despite their resource usage?

The problem here, as so often in online conversations, is that we have been speaking in generalities. I'm not supportive of the development and production of all technological items (in fact, were I to look into it I would possibly be in favour of <1%) just as you, I assume, do not make 'technological madness' all-inclusive. It goes without saying that there is a great need to improve our recycling abilities (more technology there).

Considering the size of the human population, its future growth, the momentum of the current use of resources and the lack of sustainable policies I will have to disagree with your statement that it is possible to protect all affected species.

With respect, you have added provisos which did not exist in the original post. They may have been implied but I chose to adopt a literal interpretation of 'is it possible'. I assumed controlled resource use and ecologically aware stewardship. In such a scenario, comprehensive protection would be possible. Still extremely difficult, but possible. A great many changes need to be made to make such a scenario a reality, hence my contextual answer of 'highly unlikely'.

What do you think of the urban living aspect disconnecting the bulk of the people in the developed world from nature? Is that an issue that would affect future protection (in your opinion)?

I don't think I need to go into detail on this. It is, of course, a serious issue. Disassociation results in decreased funds and support. There are signs that the trend for disassociation is being reversed but it is happening much too slowly.

What about leadership? Do you think the current leadership in the developed world has the capacity to implement protection? Here in the US the government barely listens to its scientific advisers!!

We're in a similar situation in the U.K., particularly with the 'new' coalition government. I'm less concerned with their capacity for such than I am about the lack of will to adopt even a pragmatic approach which is plainly evident.

Hmmm, I think it is possible (in theory and in the best of worlds), but (like you stated) it requires an enormous change in how we run things as a species (policies, technologies, resource use etc). That is where I would like to go, what I would choose, and, actually, what I strive towards. Still, the resistance is extreme. The hardest aspect with environmental protection and conservation is that one can never afford to lose a battle (e.g. the oil fields in Alaska). As soon as one has lost an issue the resource is compromised. In contrast the groups that want to use the 'protected' (temporarily) resource simply have to keep knocking at the door. It only takes one 'win' and there is access to the resource. It is a bit frustrating....

Nice to see some good debate and discussion going on. Some very good points made.

I get the automatic reaction of “SAVE EVERYTHING!!!” but that is very much an idealistic view. As painful as it may be there needs to be acknowledgement of the limited resources available for conservation work. Money and manpower are severely lacking as is cooperation from governments and communities in certain cases. Cooperation between parties reaches its most complex with regards to migratory species and quite frankly frustrates me. Even in the hypothetical situation of full funding and unlimited manpower there are wider reaching threats of anthropogenic climate change, ocean acidification and contamination of environments that may make certain conservation projects ultimately futile.
In the light of conservation groups and organisations drawing up checklists with criteria that is by on large not disclosed to scrutiny I feel it would be in everyone’s interest to establish some sort of guidelines or regulation to ensure conservation initiatives are justified. By “justified” I do not simply mean those species that will without doubt afford success stories though it is important money is not wasted. In some scenarios where limited funds are available, the species in question is suitable for captivity and rerelease to its natural habitat in time captive breeding could provide a cost effective way of ensuring the survival of a species. This will keep species waiting in the wings as it were until habitat security is established. Not ideal but if it means the difference between survival and extinction I’m all for it. Of course there are many species that are ill suited to this and the issue of captive breeding and zoos is a whole other discussion in and of itself. I’d like to think that checklists are drawn up on the bases of genetic uniqueness, status as a possible or known keystone or umbrella species, population numbers and captive breeding suitability. There will be more to consider but these are the ones that have popped into my head as I type.
What concerns me about conservation practitioners is their lack of access to resources. A study by Sutherland in 2004 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/...) indicated that in actual fact practitioners are woefully unequipped for such important decisions. For those of us who no longer have access to journal articles it’s a scary thought to think of being in a species saving position without the backup of scientific investigation. Such knowledge is expensive to access and when you are in the middle of the rainforest, waist deep in wetlands or in the middle of the ocean having such information at your fingertips even if you can afford it is but a dream. Indeed, some species do not have time for trial investigations making it all the more important for actions to be evidence based. This too could save money and free up further funds to save other species.

Ultimately none of this matters. In the grand scheme of things everything is but a blip in time. Whether we wipe out all life on Earth as we know it is largely irrelevant. Life is a phoenix. However deep the ashes we create life will emerge once again and flourish as it has done so many times before. Being moral beings seems to be the crux of the argument for saving species for many i.e; it isn’t acceptable that we are destroying such beauty. I would agree but as mentioned previously humans will lose out in the end too. We forget we are a part of this world not apart from it and the degradation of biodiversity with only serve to make our life on this planet all the more difficult.
With every species lost, hectare of forest cut down, wetland drained and litre of chemicals released into our water bodies we put another nail in the coffin of Homo sapiens.


Interesting links to species preservation archives for animals and plants:

http://www.frozenark.org/
http://www.kew.org/science-conservati...

Hmm, interesting views. Unfortunately, I have the same feeling about Homo sapiens, but I refuse to let go of the hope.
In your post you are very focused on the biologists gathering, and trying to understand, the data in the field of conservation. Obviously I do not pretend that ecologists and conservation biologists have enough data, but we have established guidelines that will work for now as we attune our knowledge with applied conservation. I think the areas that need to wake up is society overall, i.e. the realms of politics, economics and philosophy need to change to even begin an effort to truly protect species on Earth. Politicians in the US rarely (if at all) address environmental issues. We need a disaster here to make change!! Even the Fukushima reactor incident in Japan, or for that matter, the oil incident in the Gulf of Mexico, have barely changed how politics is run here. It is quite disturbing to even think about what it would take to wake up the general public (with accompanying politicians) to environmental issues!!!
Surely the UK must be more progressive than the US in the approach to the environment? Do UK politicians address the matter?

Surely the UK must be more progressive than the US in the approach to the environment? Do UK politicians address the matter?

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Unfortunately our Chancellor's Autumn Statement - released two days ago - has definitively placed the interests of business over those of the environment. Where the two may come into conflict, business will take precedence. There were notes which may have been designed to appease environmentalists and conservationists but these were either extremely flimsy and poorly constructed or were riddled with holes (one such being that while communities may actively support development, they cannot legally oppose it). Additionally, he is looking to overturn the Habitats Directive; a piece of legislation which aims to protect wild species and habitats. This directive was actually introduced by a previous conservative government which should indicate how little importance the current incumbents place on the environment. Here's a link for your interest: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/...

Other pieces of legislation such as the recent Marine Conservation Zones project which has been deferred for a couple of years as data was apparently found wanting. I must admit that I've not seen the data so cannot comment on its robustness but as data collection took several years and the current government - despite pledging to the the 'greenest ever' government - is failing spectacularly, I am highly skeptical.

Haaze wrote: "Hmm, interesting views. Unfortunately, I have the same feeling about Homo sapiens, but I refuse to let go of the hope.
In your post you are very focused on the biologists gathering, and trying to..."

Species requirements and the complexity of ecosystems may never be fully understood but I really do feel that those making the decisions need to have all the information available to them even if that means calling upon other scientists not necessarily involved on the ground with conservation full time. There needs to be less of a boundary between practitioners and academics to get a better picture and a improve conservation strategies.
Society as a whole does need to wake up but the front line needs to be strengthened. There is increasing detachment from the natural world as a whole and scientists and practitioners are often the first and last line of defence for species. In addition, these people are the ones working tooth and nail to secure better government cooperation buy recommending better guidelines based on research and field data. That's not to mention how many struggle to get media attention to make plights of species and ecosystems known to the public. It’s amazing how many important issues never make it into the public eye due to lack of media interest. In my work the first thing I learned was that an ecologist is the voice of the species or species in question. The only thing standing the way of most developers bulldozing or "improving" and area even if there are protected species there is an ecologist so it is so important they have full integrity and as much knowledge as they can. You may think that laws and legislation stand in the way too but their application is haphazard. Wildlife crime is difficult to prove and there are a number of loopholes. Many protected species dwell on private land so there is no chance to prove any previous records for such sites if they cannot be gathered (legally) in the first place.
Like Anthony said we were doing OK here in the U.K. but recent proposals have really got many of us deeply concerned. I don't want species and habitat protection to go by the wayside as a desperate grab at improving the economy. Sustainable development is the key here, particularly as an island nation. Our population is ridiculous for such a small land area and every bit of what we have left of our wildlife is so precious.

I don't think there's an easy answer to this question, but I do think there is validity in the idea that maybe some species are meant to die.
Pandas, for example, don't seem to like to mate or eat anything but bamboo (a quite unpredictably available plant with little nutritional value). So why are we wasting our time trying to save these creatures? Is cuteness enough of a reason?

However, leaving the decision up to humans is not something with which I am personally comfortable.

Andrew wrote: "I don't think there's an easy answer to this question, but I do think there is validity in the idea that maybe some species are meant to die.
Pandas, for example, don't seem to like to mate or eat ..."

Well of course. As we all know, all species will ultimately perish. Indeed, over 99% of the species which have inhabited the Earth are extinct. The immediate question is whether we should accept that species will disappear as a result of anthropogenic influences or whether we have a moral and ethical obligation to maintain biodiversity in spite of the damage we have thus far wrought. There are of course instances where it will be impossible to save certain species, many of which will disappear without our realising. But at what point do we simply accept that we have done all that we can? And once we have made that decision, what stops us from contemplating similar with regards to other species, some of which may not be in quite as dire circumstances. Further, would accepting that we can do nothing to save a species weaken the argument for conservation of critically endangered species and other biodiversity-related legislation? And lastly (that is to say, the last thing which comes immediately to mind. It clearly isn't the last relevant consideration), if we abandon a species and thus protection of its habitat, will we lose vital ecological services? Conservation of the Giant Panda conserves Panda habitat and all the species which occur therein. I daresay it would prove much more difficult to conserve these same areas on an argument from biodiversity alone having omitted one of the biggest animal fundraising icons in the world.

I'd also add that Pandas, despite your description, aren't a facultative dead-end. A study published in 2007 found that in contrast to the limited creatures often dicussed, Pandas - in common with other large mammals, particularly those which are highly specialised - have suffered enormously from anthropogenic influences. Prior to severe habitat fragmentation and degradation, Pandas occurred in high numbers. This is demonstrated by their relatively high levels of genetic diversity.

Zhang et al. (2007). Mol. Biol. Evol. 24(8):1801-1810.

Humans are a like a virus to Earth's ecosystem. Almost everywhere, very intelligent(mostly in their own minds), highly adaptive and cunning, diverse and last but not least, dangerous to an alarming degree.

oh, in that case, rats are like a virus to Earths ecosystem. They're almost everywhere (in fact in more places than humans), they're highly adaptive and cunning, diverse and last but not least, dangerous to an alarming degree.

We also don't seem to mutate or reproduce at the rate of viruses! So - if you were an infection, which would you be: a bacteria, virus, or prion? I'm going for prion - mysterious, not well known, rules by influence...

Hazel wrote: "oh, in that case, rats are like a virus to Earths ecosystem. They're almost everywhere (in fact in more places than humans), they're highly adaptive and cunning, diverse and last but not least, dan..."
dangerous to whom, hardly to the Earth's ecosystem.

K.A. wrote: "We also don't seem to mutate or reproduce at the rate of viruses! So - if you were an infection, which would you be: a bacteria, virus, or prion? I'm going for prion - mysterious, not well known, r..."

How can a virus be a virus(literally) in its own definition.

Fautau wrote: "Hazel wrote: "oh, in that case, rats are like a virus to Earths ecosystem. They're almost everywhere (in fact in more places than humans), they're highly adaptive and cunning, diverse and last but ..."

Then you have no contemplation of the amount of damage rats have done when they get onto islands that were previously free of them, whole species have been wiped out because of rats. You have no concept of the number of diseases that they can carry.

This is a species that reproduces at a scarily fast rate, that inhabit every niche going, that carry diseases and that eat everything they can get their little paws on.

Just one example is that when rats got to Big South Cape, off Stewart Island, New Zealand, the rats wiped out two bird species and greater short-tailed bat, and that isn't just one population of those species wiped out, they were driven to extinction because of the rats. A local extinction of the knobbled weevil also occured.

There are plenty of studies showing the ecological impact of rats on ecosystems.

Fautau wrote: "K.A. wrote: "We also don't seem to mutate or reproduce at the rate of viruses! So - if you were an infection, which would you be: a bacteria, virus, or prion? I'm going for prion - mysterious, not ..."

vi·rus noun \ˈvī-rəs\
plural vi·rus·es

Definition of VIRUS

1 archaic : venom 1
2 a : the causative agent of an infectious disease
b : any of a large group of submicroscopic infective agents that are regarded either as extremely simple microorganisms or as extremely complex molecules, that typically contain a protein coat surrounding an RNA or DNA core of genetic material but no semipermeable membrane, that are capable of growth and multiplication only in living cells, and that cause various important diseases in humans, lower animals, or plants; also : filterable virus
c : a disease or illness caused by a virus
3: something that poisons the mind or soul
4: a computer program that is usually hidden within another seemingly innocuous program and that produces copies of itself and inserts them into other programs and usually performs a malicious action (as destroying data)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...

so, definition 2 then. Nothing about any of the things that you listed. Definitely cannot be applied to humans, or to rats, but I can definitely apply what you said to rats, and it hold water. How you thought a strand of RNA could be cunning, I don't know.

Hazel wrote: "Fautau wrote: "Hazel wrote: "oh, in that case, rats are like a virus to Earths ecosystem. They're almost everywhere (in fact in more places than humans), they're highly adaptive and cunning, divers..."

you forgot to mention -- black death, which wiped out half the population of Europe or more.

nonetheless,2.humans are very well known to carry infectious disease(s).
b.humans are a large group of macroscopic infective agents, that are made up of extremely complex molecules and cells, that typically contain a DNA core of genetic material with semipermeable membrane, that are capable of growth and multiplication only in environment of earth, and that have caused various important, dangerous and irreversible changes to most of the species living on earth as well as to earth itself.
But highly intelligent and self-sustainable too.
i know you are right but try to apply a slight change of perception.

we can survive without having to reside inside another organism, thus we're not viruses. IN fact, everything we do is very human.

The planet is not an organism, its a series of inorganic systems that organisms live upon.

It would appear that people are being a bit too literal in their interpretations here. The human = virus analogy is far from new and at its root is arguably quite applicable. It rests not on strict definitions regarding what constitues a virus or the specific functions thereof, but on the contention that humans reproduce and adapt rapidly, exploit local resources to the detriment of the host 'cell' (read: ecosystem) and are often extremely damaging in their actions. To propose that rats constitue a valid counter-example is slightly facetious as the spread of invasive rodents has been largely facilitated by humans. Moreover, while they may indeed be extremely destructive, there are inherent limiations on the havoc they may wreak. Thus if the virus analogy is to be continued for both, rats (and indeed other destructive non-human invasives) must be considered to be a far less virulent species.

humans v rats

reproductive speed: rats win - humans 1 child (generally every 1and half to 2 years, rats several litters a year, sexually mature within a few weeks, one rat has thousands of descendants within one year.

exploit local resources, and are extremely damaging: rats win, as we're a resource to them too.

adapt rapidly: rats win, shorter generation times, faster evolution

And if rat invasions are facilitated by humans, that makes us a vector species, not a virus ;P

Look, in all seriousness, I get the analogy, but I think its disingenuous at best. It is not useful in any way, and doesn't help us actually think about the problems that we need to deal with.

Its generally a meme spouted by people who think that we should somehow be riddled with guilt simply for being what we are, while not actually saying anything helpful or useful.

Au contraire. I'm not going to comment on the first parts of your response other than to say that if you think rats win in the battle of flawed analogies, you're wrong and demonstrably so. :)

I don't see it as an altogether unhelpful analogy though. You're right that it doesn't help one think about immediate issues, but the purpose of a somewhat nebulous analogy is to introduce a level of consideration which will then hopefully lead to increased awareness of other issues. I'm not saying that the virus analogy should be propagated - far from it - but if someone proffers the arguement then, heavily dependent on context, I can appreciate a level of validity. The context of course is whether the argument is one of ecological damage or one which is ill-considered and based on thoughtless repetition of the people=scum trope. As you rightly point out, the latter example is unfortunately more frequently encountered.

What is unquestionable though is that to simply hop into a thread and say that humans are viruses is not very useful. If one puts forward a considered argument for why this is so, it may then form the basis of a discussion centred on said arguments rather than the analogy itself.

the first part was me being facetious, not serious.

The rest, yes, I agree.

Yeah, I know. I was doing likewise. :)
It's hard to convey a playful tone in text.

yeah, we really should tag emoticons on to the end, shouldn't we :p

Thon wrote: "It would appear that people are being a bit too literal in their interpretations here. The human = virus analogy is far from new and at its root is arguably quite applicable. It rests not on strict..."
man, you really have a knack for explaining your point.
think of the universe as a self-sustaining system(made up of smaller and next to infinite number of systems that interact mostly according to rules of physics and chemistry). now we know that, changing pov results in better understanding of a system. i mean the more point of observations you have the better it is. but what do you think one may perceive of the universe from outside. a fascinating thing maybe. but that's all i can say because most probably the system of space and time only exists inside the bubble of universe. and our reach and range is still very short and that seriously limits the acquisition of knowledge.
so when you will fill variables in the equation and find the answer it may/will only be correct for the current domain. because the calculator itself is the part of system, it is the most dynamical equation. also there will always be variables that remained unknown. so for the events you observed so far the answers may be true. but they can be wrong simultaneously.
think of it as a massive family of circles. a circle representing a system. so as long as you are walking in the circle it's ok. this particular idea can be perceived in many ways and branches so argument on it being correct/incorrect is futile.
now two major things that differentiate living things are "emotions" and that there are no rigid rules. so that should mean we are the most evolved form of matter. but we too spend most of our lives trying to build a perfect life. so which is more evolved is again debatable.

the above thing was a result of free time on my part and i solemnly swear i was up to no good. any confusion caused after reading previous post or this one is purely coincidental.

but the idea of human as a virus to earth came to my mind when i thought of the human population acting as one single "organism" or system(it does compare to the human body ever so slightly). another self-sustaining system that can provide for itself indefinitely unless inter fared by an external phenomenon.
but changing what one may say collectively (but i m stating it to be one already) in only one direction irreversibly. now that irreversible change produced causes another irreversible change(for example our current way of life has affected earth in so many ways and continues to do so). and the significance can also range to quite high. and we cant stop now. no moving back too. we have inhabited a major part of earth and affect all of it.
so that is why i was stating that humans might be a virus to Earth. you can relate things in other ways too.

a nice quote i found---
"life" is a fundamental property of the universe and as such can't be reduced to anything more fundamental, not even physics.



two modifications in previous argument--
*provide for itself given necessary living conditions
*and the way our brain works, i guess we cant stay stagnant.(for me this statement means a lot because i think religion supports stagnancy, a stagnancy that may be required for aversion from the ultimate disaster)

If I had the power to exterminate a particular species from this planet, I'd probably choose human extinction. Or at least, I'd relocate people to a diferent planet and set this one out of bounds.

Pangolin wrote: "If I had the power to exterminate a particular species from this planet, I'd probably choose human extinction. Or at least, I'd relocate people to a diferent planet and set this one out of bounds."

like a farmer leaving some of his fields to fallow so they recover from use :D

Precisely!

Pangolin wrote: "If I had the power to exterminate a particular species from this planet, I'd probably choose human extinction. Or at least, I'd relocate people to a diferent planet and set this one out of bounds."
it would be f*g awesome to visit again.

Lonesome George/ Solitario Jorge has died. George was the last known Pinta Island Tortoise, and there is a very good book that tells his story, Lonesome George: the Lives and Loves of a Conservation Icon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment...

The main species many have mentioned in this argument was the Panda Bear. So much attention and money on a species that was not reproducing well in captivity and the chance for land management and habitat re-connection throughout their native range in China has passed. Sadly, it should be viewed a 'sacrificial lamb', rising awareness that conservation is a temporary thing. If we do not act, they are gone. Plus, all that money and awareness can be used on species and ecoystems of high conservation potential and value.

Many may be quick to criticize this mentality and move, but like I did, many come to the realization this is best for the whole.

I will say this point is sort of backwards to that of present day conservation efforts. The species conservation model has all but vanished but for a a rare few that people are warm to. The vast majority of species in trouble are species many have not heard of nor care so much about, like reptiles and amphibians. As a group, they are statistically the most threatened terrestrial life on earth.

But what is more important is the change of conservation focus. The species conservation model is archaic as best, and is being replaced with the ecosystem-wide conservation model, holistic approach. By preserving and management land, we can holistically preserve the water quality, habitat integrity, and preserve space and habitat cohesiveness for all inhabitants rather than a select few 'adored' species. This conservation model is gaining popularity along many land managers and conservationists. But, its not foolproof, meaning conversationalists must pick biological hotspots, areas where they can save the most species. Meaning some specialists or isolated populations are increasingly hard-pressed for conservation help unless acted on by locals. Which is rare in the United States and almost nonexistent in other countries where conservation is the byproduct of eco-tourism or 1st world donations.

It is a cold situation, and one that would be greatly remedied by a drastic decrease in the human population and ecological footprint.

Extinction is a natural order of events. Ninety-nine percent of all species have become extinct, and we were not around to speed any of this up.

Steven wrote: "Extinction is a natural order of events. Ninety-nine percent of all species have become extinct, and we were not around to speed any of this up."

True. Not arguable. But... beside the point.

Whether you intended to argue that humans are not causing extinctions, or that extinctions happen naturally so that it doesn't matter if humans are causing them, simply saying, "extinctions happened before people" doesn't get you anywhere.

If you are attempting to argue that extinctions happened before people, therefore people are not causing extinctions, you're making a fallacy: fire existed before people, but that doesn't mean I did not start the fire in my bbq.

If you are attempting to argue that people may be causing extinctions, but it doesn't matter because they happened before, you are also making a fallacy, of a couple (at least) of possible kinds. Again, fire existed before people, but if I set an apartment block on fire, it matters; in other words, it matters what is burning. Secondly, my bbq fire was allowed by my city; but if I were to build a 40 foot high bonfire in my backyard and set the neighbors' hedge on fire, it would be a different story; in other words, it matters how much burning and how fast it is burning.

I suppose it might be possible to build an argument that a growing rate of extinction, already at a very high rate, is natural/not our problem/not our fault, but you're not going to get anywhere with statements like this.

Your response is better. In addition to background extinction we have moved some rates faster than the normal course of events. An organism has 3 responses to grave environmental change: move, adapt, or die. If the cryosphere keeps melting the polar bear can only go with the last choice.