Prevent. The latest on the list is a butterfly based in Europe (2007), butterflies are known as environmental indicators to many biologists and I'm not sure if we necessarily did anything besides merely exist to have caused this. If you turn it around, I wonder if in many cases it is a basis of simply not being strong enough to overcome co-existance with man. Certain creatures have actually had numbers increased in the U.S. despite hunting, habitat from man... Such as Feral hogs, and whitetail deer, There is actually much more wildlife numbers on these examples than 100 years ago. Then there is less Elk and Bear,...so who knows. As far as environmental indicators, I personally feel bees is a better example. I think the better question is should we worry about this extinction list? My feeling is we should and we shouldn't if that makes any sense.
How come human actions aren't considered natural? I mean, we are animals and stuff. If we make something extinct, that counts as the natural order of things to me... biology has a funny way of compensating for these things.
That's a good point. We are animals and part of the natural processes. It is our nature to make mistakes, but to also learn, progress, gain information and make changes based on information. That is who we are or at least should be I hope.
It's just my personal belief that there are much too many more important issues out there to be worrying about if some poisonous frog in Africa still exists. I happen to believe that the life of a human being is much more important than the life of any animal. I don't think that this list is worth worrying about.
In some way or another I deal with this topic at least once a week. I worry and I'm not optimistic at all. Too many people and too little habitat and too much rapid change and too few people able to make a difference. Make sure you give your local zoo some money and I'm telling you now... if you've never been to Glacier NP, get there ASAP. Same with Sequoia NP... those trees can't pick up and walk uphill where their climate range is going. Eventually though, Ma Nature will bring us back into balance through war, famine, meteor, or most likely, disease. It won't be pleasant.
We are in one of the greatest periods of extinctions in earth's history. The real question isn't the impact on nature...it's what is the consequences on man. NO one really knows. Things are so very interconnected, what will it all be replaced by?
You'd be surprised how many success there've been. Here's a pdf on the endangered species act with more up trends then downs -- a quick google result -- I'm sure there are better links out there. According to a program I just heard, blue whales have increased from a couple of hundred in the early 60's to over 10,000. (still dangerously low). Bald Eagle populations in the US are up dramatically. Don't give up hope! Takes work. And Rim....we're taking the kiddies to Banff national park for a week this summer -- the Canadian side of Glacier National Park. Inspiring and depressing (re the receeding glaciers) all at the same time.
"South American Frog Secretions Stimulate Insulin Release, Could Offer Diabetes Treatment Hope" Even if only for selfish reasons, preserving other species helps to preserve our own. After all, there's a species of ant in South America that's known to cure cancer. (Don't worry, Sean Connery is on the case.) Perhaps, but allowing the "natural order" to prevail does not necessarily include us humans. I would think one would want to preserve the status quo, in which humans are dominant and abundant, for as long as possible. Aaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!
We have ethics and intelligence, which gives us more control and awareness of our impact to the natural world.
Those are cool articles... but your argument still does nothing to change my opinions that you bolded.
My point: if that particular frog goes extinct before we find it, then we don't end up with a possible treatment for human diabetes. Much of today's human medicines were derived from the study of seemingly exotic zoology and plant biology. And also, though they could theoretically exist, there really aren't any ants that poop the cure for cancer. Medicine Man is, unfortunately, a work of fiction, but, to its credit, one that does (*SPOILER ALERT*) involve involuntary facial tattoos and Sean Connery bamboo stick-fighting the f- out of a pygmy witch doctor. There's a hint of its peer review-lacking status inherent in the IMDB plot keywords: I think I'm going to go lick the back of a different species of South American frog, and fire up the old Medicine Man DVD. [Adopting Scottish brogue:] "Shut your feminist trap, Dr. Melfi!"
I think that's the unspoken core of environmentalism. Because ~300-400k years after we're gone, there won't be many traces of our mark on the planet. (minus some mad scientist graffitiing the moon)
So? Because we have a larger brain means that our collective actions aren't natural? I think the only way it would be unnatural is if humans went out of their way to destroy a species. As it stands now, we harm other species for our own benefit only, not because of some vendetta against nature. The only thing that separates us from the animals is emotion... animals have intelligence, just not as much.
What is this benefit that we are getting? You're forgetting the ethics part btw. We have ethics and they don't.
