What is Digg?168 Comments
- ironhide, on 10/11/2007, -8/+54@Monolith3, it's called biodiversity and the balance of nature. We don't know what will happen to other species that depend on the extinct species.
- silverchrysalis, on 10/11/2007, -21/+6611. humans
- tthomas1529, on 10/11/2007, -7/+38@monolith -
example - take away the honey bee and all plant life that depends on pollination, the food we eat, becomes extinct, creating death and disease for all. - MWeather, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3699% of a humans who ever lived are dead. Can I kill you?
- countmandible, on 11/15/2007, -11/+38@Monolith3
Are you seriously trying to make an argument that money is more important than life?
Who cares if any of those species matter to you? The world is larger and more complex than you will ever understand.
It's time to step to step back from this discussion and wait for some discussion at your own depth.
I hear there's a new video game coming out. - lickmygiggle, on 10/11/2007, -6/+22It's not a "broken sarcasm detector", it's that there are people that are actually crazy enough to believe that we have nothing to do with the extinction/endangerment of several species of animals. Without hearing your tone whilst speaking, it's difficult to tell what's sarcasm, and what's another ***** nutjob on Digg. Hence people using the "/sarcasm" tags.
- typo180, on 10/11/2007, -6/+21@Monolith3
Uh...actually the honey bees aren't doing so hot...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6299480 - sathishcj, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13If you haven't read the article, let me recap.
Most of those extinctions were due to habitat loss, excessive hunting, poaching (killing for meat, skin, eggs...).
I am pretty sure those are not "natural" causes. That is the reason we should care about those extinctions. - typo180, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14We should care because we're upsetting how Nature handles these things, because once they're gone, we can't get them back, and because we're not the only species on this planet that matters.
"...Over billions of years on a unique sphere, chance has painted a thin covering of life, complex, wonderful, improbable, and fragile. Suddenly, we humans, a recently arrived species no longer subject to the checks and balances inherent in nature, have grown in population, technology and intelligence to a position of terrible power.
We now wield the paintbrush."
-Paul McCready - rbochman, on 10/11/2007, -8/+19Guess the comments here pretty much sum up the apathy and ignorance of our society. We as a society will not care until humans are on the list.
- AriaStar, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14@ Monolith3:
You are an idiot. These animals wouldn't be so severely endangered if it weren't for the activity of humans. That's the problem here. We humans are causing it and you're not wanting to help fix it. All you wonder is about the money. At this point, a hundred or so hairy nosed wombats dying won't make a huge impact, but what species will be kill off next?
We're starting to put bees in danger and an estimated third of food that Americans eat, and who knows how much else around the world, is dependent on bee pollination. We need to be spending the money to lessen our impact on other animals. By showing us the animals that are basically beyond help due to numbers to small to prevent inbreeding, maybe, just maybe, people will start feeling bad and realize the finality of the death of an entire species, and want to do something to prevent it from happening again.
Actually, if we started weeding out the humans that don't care, like you, then we probably wouldn't have as big of a problem. - HunterTV, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15I thought you were serious. Because I actually *know* people who think like that, not a lot, but they are out there.
- 0z3r0z, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15@ Monolith3
its not a political issue, its a moral issue - Tristam29, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Actually, in 2002 the figure was much closer to 94.2% of all humans ever born were dead.
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx - LordSkywalker, on 10/11/2007, -5/+14I have a feeling my future kid will be asking me: "They actually had living polar bears back when you were a kid?"
And I'll say: "Yeah, that was back before the icecaps had melted and they all died." - mikes1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Are mosquitoes one of them? No? Damn.
- murty, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Man, poachers piss me off! Just goes to show how important money is to some people. They are willing to cause a species of creature to go extinct, just for a bit of cash.
- nblsavage, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10@whoaohh, because humankind is sentient and does not act out of instinct. That makes us unique in our impact on the world.
- nblsavage, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9What questions? All I've seen so far, with the exception of Monolith's question, have been smart-assed remarks.
- daedalus779, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10I want one of those hairy nosed wombats, they look kind of cute.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Even then....
- glmory, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6there are actually a few hundred Amur leopards. Just most of them are in zoos. I would imagine their fact checkers at least have a case for keeping their job. http://www.centralfloridazoo.org/animals/Amur_leopard.htm
- Sabin17, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Somebody's got to save the wee turtles!
- zissan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I should tell you the speed of spieces extinch under human hands is faster more than 1000 times in nuture.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4
WHAT WE HAVE NOT LEARNED:
you don't ***** where you eat
...and so, we will die - rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4None of the Iraqi children are native to the US so when the actions of the government causes their death, they are not guilty? Our actions as a society directly impact the actions of others.
- QueEsAmor, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Forget the 120 lynxs, there's less than 40 amur leopards around. When does the job as fact-checker open at Scientific American?
- ToxicGas, on 08/11/2008, -0/+4a friend of mine does endangered animal art ...
http://www.racheldillon.com/portfolio4.shtml
(google cache in case it goes down) http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:btcOQJhj3R8J:www.racheldillon.com/+rachel+dillon&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
she's helping get the word out .... - shortarabguy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5They're 8 feet long and 2,000 pounds. If they're "wee turtles," what do you call big?
- glmory, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Lets not go totally doom and gloom. Remember we have had some huge successes, particularly here in America. Just here in America we have rescued: Bison, Wild Turkeys, American Allagators, Elephant Seals, Grey Wolves, and Mountain Lions, Grizzly bears, Bald Eagles from the brink of extinction, to somewhere ranging from just barely off the threatened species list in the case of bald eagles, and grizzly bears near Yellowstone, to quite commen in the case of wild turkeys, elephant seals, and Allagators. Its not over till its over, many of the species listed in the article have large captive populations that will quite likely be used to return the wild species to their habitat in the future.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Wombats are vicious buggers! They would not make for a good pet!
- jonathan95060, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Concerned about human caused extinction of other species? I have 3 words for you: human population growth.
It is very simple. total ecological impact is "population size * average ecological foot print". Even if our ecological footprint had remained the same over the last century (it has increased) population growth would still result in a 6x increase in the damage we do to the environment. Current estimates expect the world population to level off around 9 billion (50% more people than today). Unless the average eco-footprint decreases drastically (hint: india and china has rapidly growing economies and corresponding increases in consumption) things are going to get a lot worse.
The question isn't just "how many humans can the earth sustainably support?" but "as we go from 6 billion people to 7 billion or 8 billion, what is the environmental cost of this increase?"
Sure, poaching is a problem and poverty is a problem but do you really think the environment would be better if all of the poor people had a first world standard of life?
Even if the risks of reduced biodiversity turn out to be neglible do you want to live in a world were the only animals are either cockroaches or domesticated plants and animals?
It is not fair to ask China, India and the rest of the world to maintain a low standard of living. If you want to preserve the environment for other life forms we need to reduce poverty (so poachers can make a living some other way) and reduce the world population (heh, good luck with that goal). - kamisama, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@imacashew : Life as a whole is flourishing on this planet, hell it's competing for space in many areas. When one species gets wiped out or depleted, another will just step in to that nitch of life. This is how it's worked for millions of years. Without detonating nukes or completely slashing every last bit of rainforest, we aren't gonna kill enough species to break the "circle of life"...which isn't really a circle anyways. it's a web, and it does not have any single point of failure.
That is indeed how it worked for millions of years, what you are willingly not taking into account is that only the last couple of 100 years humanity is deciding what gets to survive and what diminishes, not nature. It's us who's doing the destroying, and at a far faster rate than would be the case if you let nature take it's course. Meaning nature doesn't have time enough to replace anything to fill up niches as you say. You can seek out whatever works for you to not feel guilty, but it's wrong in so many ways. - tthomas1529, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8@monolith
i give you honey bees only as an known example of what would happen if a certain species goes bye bye. no one can tell you what the possible effects on other species would be when another becomes extinct. perhaps there is a beetle that thrives only on the bacteria produced in the dung of the nearly extinct cheetah, and a bird that depends on that beetle as a sole source for nutrition, and a snake that eats the eggs of that bird....and on and on. - benthedart, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Before we weep for the end of the world, you know that even native peoples--long before modern technology drove species to extinction. That's are large part of why we don't have mammoths anymore.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Actually, as incorrect and retarded as 'go extinct' sounds, its actually the correct term!
Don't ask me why, I'm with you and would much rather 'become extinct' but thems the breaks! - nblsavage, on 10/11/2007, -9/+12@lickmygiggle, my bad...I just assumed my comment was so out there that it couldn't be taken seriously (same arguments the global warming deniers use)
- GuruKid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Just to clarify...I'm not a vegan or a vegetarian. Just because something is living does not make it my responsibility to save it.
As for your starving cows argument, it is just ridiculous. I hope you were being sarcastic. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The problem here is that nature isn't the one who is making these animals become extinct, it is the arrogance of man.
(As is also evident by the lack of research on behalf of all the proponents of half-baked Darwinian theory in this digg.)
We are all connected. Even if a bunch of species ended up becoming extinct from the actions of humankind and by some miracle nothing was affected (e.g: no collapse of the food chain, no disruption of the evolution of other species which might even include our own, etc.) there is still something wrong with the way things are (mis)managed and how the majority of humanity operates mentally, emotional, and physically.
"Schizophrenia is a perfectly natural reaction to an unnatural environment."
We live in a schizophrenic society when instant gratification takes precedent over building a sustainable future or a healthy society. There is more than an abundance of technology and resources to put in place a self-sustaining culture that is beneficial for ALL (plant, animal, mineral) with minimal effort. We don't have to kill anyone or destroy any groups, do any arduous research, or restructure all of society to fit some unrealistic ideal...
...all we have to do is implement intelligent design ("free" energy, renewable resources, careful planning, etc.) as individuals. The internet is a valuable resource in this department and has more than enough tools to get you started.
It is your responsibility as an inhabitant of this planet to be a preserver of future generations and to value ALL of life, especially your own. You evolved a neo-cortex for a reason. To allow laziness or the immaturity of greed to keep you from fulfilling that simple goal is to deny life itself.
"Genomic evolutionists warn that if we fail to apply the lessons of our shared genetic destiny, which should be teaching us the importance of cooperation among all species, we threaten human existence. We need to move beyond Darwinian theory, which stresses the importance of individuals, to one that stresses the importance of community.
British scientist Timothy Lenton provides evidence that evolution is more dependent on the interactions among species than it is on the interaction of individuals within the species. Evolution becomes survival of the fittest groups rather than the survival of the fittest individuals." - HsoKinees, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2thankfully Penguins aren't on that list.. MS would be the first to blame :P
- Scrollfx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The animal kingdom no longer follow one rule of natural selection, now they also have to follow the rule of human selection.
- GuruKid, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3It is all a matter of what is of value to you. If you want those animals to live, you should donate money to a wildlife reserve. Others, like myself, don't really care about particular species going extinct.
Do you really care about saving all life? I bet most of you aren't vegetarians or vegans.
Are you worried that it MAY have an impact on nature? Many species have gone extinct so far and it has not impacted our life adversely. Plus, as someone already pointed out, extinction only occurs when ALL the individuals die and those last few individuals to die cannot have a big impact on nature.
So, Imho, only those vegetarians who do all in their power to preserve all life have some form of argument here. - AriaStar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@ darkciti:
Just because we humans CAN wipe out all other species does not make it the responsible thing to do. "Natural selection" is basically a theory anyway, and intended to be within a species. The healthiest wombats survive, for example. it's not species against species, but rather individuals in a species. Mother Nature isn't the one who decided they're useless. We humans have ruined their habitats, and blaming this on natural selection, survival of the fittest, or Mother Nature are all ways of shunning the responsibility of dealing with what we humans have caused.
Slightly off topic, but not completely: If the VA Tech shooter had not done himself in, would you say that the dead were just weeded out by natural selection, no longer needed by Mother Nature, and that the shooter was just the one on top? - dib2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Save the Rhinos! Mad cute little things.
- lysdexia, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2If only we could generate one tenth of one per cent of this compassion for the humans that suffer terribly and die daily on planet earth. You know, I do give a ***** about turtles and haggis, but not as much as I do about my fellow humans.
- jeanpoole, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"Not to sound like an ass, but don't animals go extinct all the time? "
Shortaraguy -
You are maybe missing the point, but you are not alone in this thread in people who seem to be missing the point...
An individual species like a cheetah going extinct is tragic, and all the more tragic if humans have caused it - but the far bigger picture is that a very very very large number of species of animals, insects, birds, amphibians, fish etc are going extinct - at an unprecedented rate... unprecedented except for those times in the earths history where near everything was wiped out... There have been 5 such occasions throughout the entire history of the earth. That scientists are claiming current extinction rates see us possibly entering a 6th such phase in the history of the planet, should be cause for much more alarm than is being shown....
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction :
"Prior to the dispersion of humans across the earth, extinction generally occurred at a continuous low rate, mass extinctions being relatively rare events. Starting approximately 100,000 years ago, and coinciding with an increase in the numbers and range of humans, species extinctions have increased to a rate unprecedented[4] since the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. This is known as the Holocene extinction event and is at least the sixth such extinction event. Some experts have estimated that up to ***half of presently existing species may become extinct by 2100****." - Stephiems, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2But what if they don't make the cut because of us...what if these animals would still be here in great numbers if we didn't destroy them? We could go out and kill every single animal if we wanted. How is that natural selection? Animals that go extinct because they just don't make the cut are totally different then animals that go extinct because we hunted and killed to the point they couldn't reproduce enough to keep the population going. This doesn't even bring in the fact that us introducing different species into areas they NEVER would have gone to has destroyed many different animals. We are a species that doesn't fit into natural selection anymore, we have medicine and technology so our weakest don't necessarily die anymore. That also means our population expands at a rate that it wouldn't if we still were cut down by natural selection. All these things affect animals who might have flourished if it weren't for us. We are the only species who can actually give back to nature, and I think its our duty to help.
- Kwipper, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5but will they blend?
- jeanpoole, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Not to sound like an ass, but don't animals go extinct all the time? "
Shortaraguy -
You are maybe missing the point, but you are not alone in this thread in people who seem to be missing the point...
An individual species like a cheetah going extinct is tragic, and all the more tragic if humans have caused it - but the far bigger picture is that a very very very large number of species of animals, insects, birds, amphibians, fish etc are going extinct - at an unprecedented rate... unprecedented except for those times in the earths history where near everything was wiped out... There have been 5 such occasions throughout the entire history of the earth. That scientists are claiming current extinction rates see us possibly entering a 6th such phase in the history of the planet, should be cause for much more alarm than is being shown....
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction :
"Prior to the dispersion of humans across the earth, extinction generally occurred at a continuous low rate, mass extinctions being relatively rare events. Starting approximately 100,000 years ago, and coinciding with an increase in the numbers and range of humans, species extinctions have increased to a rate unprecedented[4] since the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. This is known as the Holocene extinction event and is at least the sixth such extinction event. Some experts have estimated that up to ***half of presently existing species may become extinct by 2100****." - ares623, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Earth rocks. Save it.
The power is yours!! -Captain Planet -
Show 51 - 100 of 164 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is