What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
31 Comments
- Ahmon, on 11/04/2009, -0/+10Conservation isn't just about preserving plants and animals. It's also about preserving our own environment - the one that allows human beings to stay alive.
Ass. - BossKey, on 11/04/2009, -0/+9This isn't exactly evolution. It's completely out of scale thanks to human technologies. The problem is, we're wiping out species before we understand how they might help us, like how doctors have found cures for diseases in rare tropical plants, or how scientists are inspired to solve a technology problem based on properties or behaviors in exotic animals or plants. Once we wipe them out prematurely, we lose valuable head starts, provided for free by nature, for solving our problems.
You also feel great letting species go without caring if they might have invisible current value. For instance, you're ready to let toads go. What if they happen to be a key part of the insect control system in your area, and taking them out leads to flourishing populations of disease carrying insects that can now descend on you in vastly increased numbers? That's the other problem with unnaturally accelerated extinction, you may never know when you're upsetting a balance somewhere.
Regular evolution happens over billions of years, not a few decades. In a long time scale, nature can maintain balances more gradually. When humans cause change this fast without compensating, there's no time for nature to compensate. Since humans depend on ecological balance for stable food supplies, clean water, health, etc. it's potentially a huge deal to be responsible for premature extinctions. - Baratatat, on 11/04/2009, -2/+8This makes me sick.
- Zomgondo, on 11/04/2009, -3/+8Saving them would hurt the economy, raise our taxes, and lead to Socialism and death panels! VOTE FOR ME!!!!
/s - dwalker, on 11/04/2009, -4/+9This is so sad. Mostly down to the vile mould suffocating our Earth: MAN.
If all you sceptics who do not believe in global warming then you surely can not ignore this fact? - RAAFStupot, on 11/04/2009, -2/+7The worrying part is: What happens to our ecosystem when these species go extinct?
FTA:
<Out of the 47,677 species in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 17,291 were deemed to be at serious risk. These included 21% of all known mammals, 30% of amphibians, 70% of plants and 35% of invertebrates.>
When even 5% of plant species become extinct, have we any hope of understanding the ripple-down effect that would have through the rest? - askantik, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3Please go study highschool biology or ecology. Species do not live or act in solitude. You change or delete one aspect of the ecosystem, and the whole *****' thing can come tumbling down.
- anakast, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3I think you misunderstand the importance of conservation. Most of our medical drugs (the legal ones) are based on naturally-obtained secondary metabolites. We copy and imitate nature in a large part of science, it's vital we maintain biodiversity, even just for our own sakes.
- askantik, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3Thank you... so many retards on here that are like like "WHO CARES OMFGZ" don't understand the basic principle of ecology, which is ecosystems. It's like a complex machine... remove just one little nut or bolt and it can affect the entire thing in unforeseen ways.
- Rixta, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2I hope mosquitoes are on this list...I hate those little buggers.
- carbonetc, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Plenty of things that eat mosquitoes are...
- majordanger, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1Yep , This is our planet. Stole it fair n square. You critters go git yur own planet.
- c0mputar, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1I had a longer post but I deleted it except for this conclusion.
If you want change, then how about looking at how much longer it'll take before the population of humanity's input of oxygen exceeds the decreasing output of nature's oxygen. Now that ***** scares me. However, all our problems, animal's needs included, are solved once our population stops increasing. We cannot possibly hope to impose restrictions on any countries if there population size is unrestricted. As a result, we can't hope for their to be any change to the destruction of the habitat and of the wild animals that rely on them. Any advancement in technology will be negated because it'll eventually be offset by the increasing population size.
However, that is short term. In a couple hundred years once we've figured out a cheap and effective way to convert CO2 into oxygen, and salt/waste water into fresh water, then we can go let our planet turn into a giant city. As for wild animals, even now they aren't needed to feed us[we have a planet surplus, it's that distribution is the problem], and will slowly become scarce forcing those that rely on them to adapt, as they can since the technology is available.
Lastly, *****: "Since humans depend on ecological balance for stable food supplies, clean water, health, etc. it's potentially a huge deal to be responsible for premature extinctions." - BossKey, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1ONSP - No, you're wrong. All I'm saying is let's not extinguish species at a higher-than-natural rate. I'm not trying to save every last species like you claim. If we get back to a more natural extinction rate, then species will still die, as they always have...just not so unnaturally quickly. You completely missed that and went off on some extremist rant. Guess what, I don't go to church.
- anakast, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2No I agree, I can't stand tree huggers and green activists, the ones in my own country are against scientific progress (e.g. GE crops) which makes no sense. I think scientific development is really the only way to go, we can't stop fragmentation of rainforests as you say but we can certainly cut our reliance on rainforests for resources and then subsequently put protection over them.
- Junkyarddawg, on 11/05/2009, -1/+1I've always wondered why every environmental article always draws the racist & nutty right commenters.
Anyway, most of the threatened species are associated with tropical or subtropical freshwater - a habitat that's rapidly disappearing due to diverting for human consumption or irrigation, damming, and pollution. Pretty much any animal which lives in or by freshwater bodies in the tropics or subtropics is likely to be extinguished within 100 years. There isn't really much anyone can do about it; when there's too many people and too little water, plants and animals suffer first. - c0mputar, on 11/04/2009, -1/+1ashantik, now that's complete green brainwash. It's so ignorant it's why I've took it upon myself to play the extreme devil's advocate for this issue.
- CapnSlam, on 11/04/2009, -2/+2"Third of species 'facing crisis"
we obviously need to step in and tax the ***** out of the remaining 2/3rds of species - Jaiotu, on 11/04/2009, -3/+3Good riddance! All this bio-diversity is for the birds!
...at least while we still have birds... - ONSP, on 11/04/2009, -1/+0BOSSKEY: "This isn't exactly evolution. It's completely out of scale thanks to human technologies. The problem is, we're wiping out species before we understand how they might help us, like how doctors have found cures for diseases in rare tropical plants, or how scientists are inspired to solve a technology problem based on properties or behaviors in exotic animals or plants. Once we wipe them out prematurely, we lose valuable head starts, provided for free by nature, for solving our problems.
You also feel great letting species go without caring if they might have invisible current value. For instance, you're ready to let toads go. What if they happen to be a key part of the insect control system in your area, and taking them out leads to flourishing populations of disease carrying insects that can now descend on you in vastly increased numbers? That's the other problem with unnaturally accelerated extinction, you may never know when you're upsetting a balance somewhere."
Yeah, yeah, "coulda, shoulda, woulda...what if...blah blah blah"...
I could use the same argument for abortion. "How many 'Einsteins in their respective fields have we 'prematurely' extinct?'
Take your guilt to church and leave it out of secular politics.
I will end this with my George Carlin trump card:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw - c0mputar, on 11/04/2009, -2/+1I posted somewhere else. I'm all for conservation of fresh water and forests. However, there is absolutely no way we can convince developing countries to stop habitat destruction, mainly the Amazon for your concern. We need to be working on curbing population growth before we can even ever hope to try and save the Amazon. It's just I hate posts like these that distract the devotion of environmentalists. These environmentalists will never win if they go out chaining themselves to trees in the amazon, so to speak. You got to fix the source of the problem, and not how we can prevent the effects of the problem, which would be most effective by utilizing the American army :P
- johansalmon, on 11/04/2009, -2/+1The mont important thing facing extinction is the White race, which, unless something is done, will end up wiped out through race-mixing.
- Isenborg, on 11/04/2009, -5/+2You can't actually believe this story, right? Think people. This is so obviously a politically motivated "science" group. This comes from the Ted Danson/Whoopi Goldberg "All life in the oceans will die in ten years!" (spoken in 1995) school of farcical science.
- jagenigma, on 11/04/2009, -5/+2Well, as long as us humans would be fine, i don't care.
- ONSP, on 11/04/2009, -5/+1dwalker: "This is so sad. Mostly down to the vile mould suffocating our Earth: MAN."
Spoken like a true zealot. Brilliant...let's all eradicate ourselves! Sheer genius!
Take your guilt to church and leave it out of secular politics.
I could use the same argument for abortion. "How many 'Einsteins in their respective fields have we 'prematurely' extinct?'
I will end this with my George Carlin trump card:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw - ONSP, on 11/04/2009, -5/+1Geroge Carlin can save the self hate on this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw - zoomaKabu, on 11/04/2009, -6/+1"More than a third of species ASSESSED"?? What kind of science is that? Oh yeah, it isn't science. It's propaganda.
- c0mputar, on 11/04/2009, -8/+2The only species worth humanity's attention are ones that directly influence the production of clean air, which is mainly plankton. The only conservation we should be concerning ourselves with is with forestry and fresh water.
What the ***** do toads and seals do for us? - mbraynard, on 11/04/2009, -9/+3We have to save the dinosau....
TOO LATE! - osdihg, on 11/04/2009, -10/+0BUT DOES IT RUN CRYSIS?
- c0mputar, on 11/04/2009, -17/+5Bury me.
Who cares? By the way, isn't this part of the unending billion year process called evolution? Survival of the most adaptable, bitches! Crows and rats *highfive*
PS: Now plankton on the other hand, I'll give a ***** then.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is