Rare River Dolphin is now extinct
- Thread starter Xevious
- Start date
"This extinction represents the disappearance of a complete branch of the evolutionary tree of life and emphasises that we have yet to take full responsibility in our role as guardians of the planet."
Well, it's been happening for millions of years. Species come and go for various reasons. I can't wait until we get blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs...
Well, it's been happening for millions of years. Species come and go for various reasons. I can't wait until we get blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs...
Gothic Walrus
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']"This extinction represents the disappearance of a complete branch of the evolutionary tree of life and emphasises that we have yet to take full responsibility in our role as guardians of the planet."
Well, it's been happening for millions of years. Species come and go for various reasons. I can't wait until we get blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs...[/QUOTE]
An asteroid is just a teeny bit different than overfishing a species that's been rare and endangered for years and killing it in the process.
Well, it's been happening for millions of years. Species come and go for various reasons. I can't wait until we get blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs...[/QUOTE]
An asteroid is just a teeny bit different than overfishing a species that's been rare and endangered for years and killing it in the process.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='bmulligan']Well, it's been happening for millions of years. Species come and go for various reasons. I can't wait until we get blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs...[/QUOTE]
I'll be interested to see what happens when unsustainable and nonexclusionary fishing impacts something people care about. Sure, *you* may not give a
about yet another species gone, but when swordfish become extinct due to overfishing, or something else...what then?
By then, you and I will be long dead; but that doesn't nullify our contribution to the matter. First world society is living way too large, and has noing interest at all in either the following generation, three generations down, or the ideal seven generations. those people, I want what's mine right now! those dolphins if they're too dumb to get in the way!
I'll be interested to see what happens when unsustainable and nonexclusionary fishing impacts something people care about. Sure, *you* may not give a
about yet another species gone, but when swordfish become extinct due to overfishing, or something else...what then?By then, you and I will be long dead; but that doesn't nullify our contribution to the matter. First world society is living way too large, and has no
ing interest at all in either the following generation, three generations down, or the ideal seven generations. those people, I want what's mine right now! those dolphins if they're too dumb to get in the way!
RBM
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']impacts something people care about.[/quote]
I'll broaden that sentiment a bit: remember the hubbub when honeybees started dying off in droves? Articles all over the paper and citrus farmers, commodity exchange brokers, agriculturalists all wringing their hands wondering what we're going to do. Get out there with fine brushes and pollinate millions of blossoms by hand? (Tear down that wall down south, pronto!)
Unfortunately, I am a big, fat pessimist in this regard. I believe that nobody will give a hoot until it's too late. Fishermen will adamantly defend their right to provide for their families...until their fishery completely collapses...then, they'll be forced to find some other way to provide for their families, anyways. Except, now we'll have lost a resource which won't come back in any of our lifetimes. (that goes double for commercial fishing lines and tenfold for Asian fishing companies in particular.)
I'll broaden that sentiment a bit: remember the hubbub when honeybees started dying off in droves? Articles all over the paper and citrus farmers, commodity exchange brokers, agriculturalists all wringing their hands wondering what we're going to do. Get out there with fine brushes and pollinate millions of blossoms by hand? (Tear down that wall down south, pronto!)
Unfortunately, I am a big, fat pessimist in this regard. I believe that nobody will give a hoot until it's too late. Fishermen will adamantly defend their right to provide for their families...until their fishery completely collapses...then, they'll be forced to find some other way to provide for their families, anyways. Except, now we'll have lost a resource which won't come back in any of our lifetimes. (that goes double for commercial fishing lines and tenfold for Asian fishing companies in particular.)
A
Apossum
Guest
some Chinese factory probably dumped 10 tons of mercury in the river.
[quote name='mykevermin'] First world society is living way too large, and has no ing interest at all in either the following generation, three generations down, or the ideal seven generations. those people, I want what's mine right now! those dolphins if they're too dumb to get in the way![/QUOTE]
There's no sense in lamenting every species that dies off, unless you want to blame human existence for every change in evolutional survival. The neat thing about life is that it's always changing and adapting no matter how many species dies off throughout natural history.
Other species will adapt to live in this animal's environment, whether it's more fish, or more plankton or a new bacteria strain. Should humans be admonished for eliminating the smallpox virus or that nasty strep A? After all, they have just as much right to exist on planet earth as we do, right ?
I just think that statements like "this extinction represents the disappearance of a complete branch of the evolutionary tree of life" is hyperbole for political purposes, which is above and beyond a statement of fact. I mean, first they say they "think" it may be extinct. Then use it in a statement as concrete fact, then allude it's becuase of human intervention, all without definitive proof or even a chain of events. I think real scientists should hold off on such a quick conclusion, unless it serves these PR people politically to get some story in the paper.
ing interest at all in either the following generation, three generations down, or the ideal seven generations. those people, I want what's mine right now! those dolphins if they're too dumb to get in the way![/QUOTE]There's no sense in lamenting every species that dies off, unless you want to blame human existence for every change in evolutional survival. The neat thing about life is that it's always changing and adapting no matter how many species dies off throughout natural history.
Other species will adapt to live in this animal's environment, whether it's more fish, or more plankton or a new bacteria strain. Should humans be admonished for eliminating the smallpox virus or that nasty strep A? After all, they have just as much right to exist on planet earth as we do, right ?
I just think that statements like "this extinction represents the disappearance of a complete branch of the evolutionary tree of life" is hyperbole for political purposes, which is above and beyond a statement of fact. I mean, first they say they "think" it may be extinct. Then use it in a statement as concrete fact, then allude it's becuase of human intervention, all without definitive proof or even a chain of events. I think real scientists should hold off on such a quick conclusion, unless it serves these PR people politically to get some story in the paper.
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
I'm sure Bush had something to do with it.
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']There's no sense in lamenting every species that dies off, unless you want to blame human existence for every change in evolutional survival. The neat thing about life is that it's always changing and adapting no matter how many species dies off throughout natural history.
Other species will adapt to live in this animal's environment, whether it's more fish, or more plankton or a new bacteria strain. Should humans be admonished for eliminating the smallpox virus or that nasty strep A? After all, they have just as much right to exist on planet earth as we do, right ?
I just think that statements like "this extinction represents the disappearance of a complete branch of the evolutionary tree of life" is hyperbole for political purposes, which is above and beyond a statement of fact. I mean, first they say they "think" it may be extinct. Then use it in a statement as concrete fact, then allude it's becuase of human intervention, all without definitive proof or even a chain of events. I think real scientists should hold off on such a quick conclusion, unless it serves these PR people politically to get some story in the paper.[/QUOTE]
the systematic over fishing, killing for chinese medicinal purpose and the shear amount of crap dumped into chinas rivers, which by the way are some of the most polluted in the world is enough to wipe out any species. There is something called the food chain, its sort of a checks and balances system. We used to have one of those with our government, but I digress. Eliminating an apex predator can throw the whole system out of balance, increasing the amount of certain animals while decreasing the amount of resources available. A simple example for you to understand is the loss of predators like wolves and mountain lions on the east coast has led to a dramatic increases in the deer population which leads to overpopulation, increased animal related traffic accidents, and loss of vegetation through increased need for a larger food supply.
Ohh and even if there are a few random dolphins left it is def not enough for a sustainable population, the gene pool would be way too inbred, not that you would care about something like that.
Really i doubt there is any animal's extinction you'd worry about except maybe for the ones on your dinner plate.
Other species will adapt to live in this animal's environment, whether it's more fish, or more plankton or a new bacteria strain. Should humans be admonished for eliminating the smallpox virus or that nasty strep A? After all, they have just as much right to exist on planet earth as we do, right ?
I just think that statements like "this extinction represents the disappearance of a complete branch of the evolutionary tree of life" is hyperbole for political purposes, which is above and beyond a statement of fact. I mean, first they say they "think" it may be extinct. Then use it in a statement as concrete fact, then allude it's becuase of human intervention, all without definitive proof or even a chain of events. I think real scientists should hold off on such a quick conclusion, unless it serves these PR people politically to get some story in the paper.[/QUOTE]
the systematic over fishing, killing for chinese medicinal purpose and the shear amount of crap dumped into chinas rivers, which by the way are some of the most polluted in the world is enough to wipe out any species. There is something called the food chain, its sort of a checks and balances system. We used to have one of those with our government, but I digress. Eliminating an apex predator can throw the whole system out of balance, increasing the amount of certain animals while decreasing the amount of resources available. A simple example for you to understand is the loss of predators like wolves and mountain lions on the east coast has led to a dramatic increases in the deer population which leads to overpopulation, increased animal related traffic accidents, and loss of vegetation through increased need for a larger food supply.
Ohh and even if there are a few random dolphins left it is def not enough for a sustainable population, the gene pool would be way too inbred, not that you would care about something like that.
Really i doubt there is any animal's extinction you'd worry about except maybe for the ones on your dinner plate.
Trust me, living in Michigan I know well the consequences of deer overpopulation. I am not arguing overfishing or pollution. I agree that those things are not good for anyone, nor is disrupting the food chain. But the jump to conclusion and blaming of the human race for every extinction is what I have a problem with.
What if these dolphins are dying from a genetic disease or unknown virus? Do we know all the facts? No, yet all fingers point to those bad humans like clockwork; who are destroying the planet and all branches of the animal kingdom. No one ever questions THAT conclusion, it's assumed as fact.
What if these dolphins are dying from a genetic disease or unknown virus? Do we know all the facts? No, yet all fingers point to those bad humans like clockwork; who are destroying the planet and all branches of the animal kingdom. No one ever questions THAT conclusion, it's assumed as fact.
RBM
CAGiversary!
[quote name='bmulligan']There's no sense in lamenting every species that dies off, unless you want to blame human existence for every change in evolutional survival. The neat thing about life is that it's always changing and adapting no matter how many species dies off throughout natural history.[/quote]
So, what constitutes a legitimate warning sign of "real" danger, and imminent damage to an ecosystem, which could engender signficant consequences to human life? And better yet, how can we determine which warning signs indicate irreversible damage?
I don't believe that the answer to either question is known...for just about any ecosystem. So, it boils down to a question of risk tolerance. Some people seem to emphasize the complexity of natural systems, and they fear "domino effects" which we will be helpless to combat, once set in motion.
Others seem optimistic that "they can do something about it" when some consequences finally hit the top of the food chain (like the esteemed Emi.)
I liken the situation to living in an alien edifice. We lack sufficient knowledge of the place to confidently distinguish between load-bearing and non-essential structures, and some of us are occasionally taking whacks at the walls with sledgehammers. I doubt we could bring the whole structure down on our heads, but we can certainly cause local collapses. And I don't want to wait until cracks appear in the ceiling above me and dust sifts through, before I give a damn....because it might just be too late to run, then.
So, what constitutes a legitimate warning sign of "real" danger, and imminent damage to an ecosystem, which could engender signficant consequences to human life? And better yet, how can we determine which warning signs indicate irreversible damage?
I don't believe that the answer to either question is known...for just about any ecosystem. So, it boils down to a question of risk tolerance. Some people seem to emphasize the complexity of natural systems, and they fear "domino effects" which we will be helpless to combat, once set in motion.
Others seem optimistic that "they can do something about it" when some consequences finally hit the top of the food chain (like the esteemed Emi.)
I liken the situation to living in an alien edifice. We lack sufficient knowledge of the place to confidently distinguish between load-bearing and non-essential structures, and some of us are occasionally taking whacks at the walls with sledgehammers. I doubt we could bring the whole structure down on our heads, but we can certainly cause local collapses. And I don't want to wait until cracks appear in the ceiling above me and dust sifts through, before I give a damn....because it might just be too late to run, then.
VanillaGorilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 18 (100%)
[quote name='Emi']Dolphins don't effect my life in a meaningful way. Wake me when it's in my backyard.[/quote]But it IS in your backyard! Take a look back there one day. If you don't see any animals, it's because Global Warming killed them all.
dragonreborn23
Banned
OMFG! What type of dolphin was Flipper!?
bread's done