NationStates Jolt Archive

Now this thread is not what you thought it was going to be about.

While talking amongst people today after a few tangents on our original topic we started talking about Pandas, the 'greenie' is our group said how this animal was near extinction and that the reason for it was because humans have destroyed vast areas of its habitat, and that this was the reason why many species became extinct every year throughout the world.

For argument's sake (at least I think it was) another person in this group counteracted this statement by saying that the reasons why animal species became extinct was not because of humans destroying their habitat but rather that animals were unable to adapt to their new environments and simply said that the extinction of these animals was due to natural selection and it was all about survival of the fittest. Needless to say a good argument broke out.

However, before this turns into a blog I will ask NSG, do you think that humans are purely to blame for extiction of species or does natural selection being that the species are unable to adapt to new surrondings come into play.

Nail on the head.
If they can't adapt they die. If something can't survive in a certain environment or change that environment so that they can survive, then they can't survive. Humans have survived by changing the environment.


The question is here whether humans will be able to survive to the change of our environment... (I use environment as a general term including socially, environmentally, politically etc)
Then we will be unfit to survive.

Both. If humans destroy habitat and animals cannot adapt then I would place the balme on humans.

If lepards hunt, kill and eat an entire species into extinction, is it the fault of the lepard for eating, or the fault of the extinct species for not being able to run faster?

Species go extinct every day without any aid or hinderance on the part of mankind.

Sometimes the only possibilities are natural selection, or localized species wiped out by natural disasters.

Humanity has certainly done it's share of damage, but we aren't the root cause of all extinctions.

Species go extinct every day without any aid or hinderance on the part of mankind.

Sometimes the only possibilities are natural selection, or localized species wiped out by natural disasters.

Humanity has certainly done it's share of damage, but we aren't the root cause of all extinctions.

Well to be fair she didn't say all she said some.

Now this thread is not what you thought it was going to be about.

While talking amongst people today after a few tangents on our original topic we started talking about Pandas, the 'greenie' is our group said how this animal was near extinction and that the reason for ti was because humans have destroyed vats areas of its habitat, and that this was the reason why many species became extinct every year throughout the world.

For argument's sake (at least I think it was) another person in this group counteracted this statement by saying that the reasons why animal species became extinct was not because of humans destroying their habitat but rather that animals were unable to adapt to their new environments and simply said that the extinction of these animals was due to natural selection and it was all about survival of the fittest. Needless to say a good argument broke out.

However, before this turns into a blog I will ask NSG, do you think that humans are purely to blame for extiction of species or does natural selection being that the species are unable to adapt to new surrondings come into play.

Part of the arrogance of mankind is the belief that they are separate from the natural world and everything they do, for better or for worse, is humanity's work and not nature's.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for environmental preservation for knowledge's sake. Ever see the movie, "Medicine Man"?

Nail on the head.
If they can't adapt they die. If something can't survive in a certain environment or change that environment so that they can survive, then they can't survive. Humans have survived by changing the environment.


The question is here whether humans will be able to survive to the change of our environment... (I use environment as a general term including socially, environmentally, politically etc)
Then we will be unfit to survive.

It will be interesting to see but I think humans will survive, after all humans have gone through major environment changes before.

Both. If humans destroy habitat and animals cannot adapt then I would place the balme on humans.

If lepards hunt, kill and eat an entire species into extinction, is it the fault of the lepard for eating, or the fault of the extinct species for not being able to run faster?

So it is the leopard's fault?

So it is the leopard's fault?


I would have said that the lepards hold more responsiblity, yes.

Part of the arrogance of mankind is the belief that they are separate from the natural world and everything they do, for better or for worse, is humanity's work and not nature's.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for environmental preservation for knowledge's sake. Ever see the movie, "Medicine Man"?

No I haven't

I would have said that the lepards hold more responsiblity, yes.

Ok fair enough, but does the leopard have the same reasoning capabilities as humans to be able to realise maybe we should stop eating so many so that we may continue to eat them?

IIRC some animal species do ensure that some are left so that next year they have adequate supply of food, however, I would place that down to instinct. But then that is a whole other topic.

Ok fair enough, but does the leopard have the same reasoning capabilities as humans to be able to realise maybe we should stop eating so many so that we may continue to eat them?

No of course not.

However, before this turns into a blog I will ask NSG, do you think that humans are purely to blame for extiction of species or does natural selection being that the species are unable to adapt to new surrondings come into play.

The two are hardly mutually exclusive.

Obviously, human beings are to blame for the extinction of species that we cause to go extinct, but this is just another selective pressure... if a particularly massive, destructive, and fast one.

I'm just not sure what that's supposed to prove.

For evolution to play a part in this and the 'natural selection' part to get its redeeming moral feature, there needs to be enough time for the animals to actually adapt. That means there must be a few generations in which slight variations would lead to improved survival chances and so on.

When humans destroy habitats, they do it more quickly than that. There is little adaptation possible when the entire ecosystem in which an animal lives is destroyed within five years - it hardly leaves enough to time for the initial generation to produce offspring, let alone any sort of material genetic changes to take hold.

That being said, pandas are clearly not meant to be around for much longer. If an animal literally doesn't know how to reproduce, you know something has gone wrong at some point along the way.

No I haven't

Reasonably good movie. It's about a cure for cancer being discovered in the Amazonian rain forest and about a race against time to find it's source before loggers destroy the area.

No of course not.

Well then how can you blame the leopard?

Reasonably good movie. It's about a cure for cancer being discovered in the Amazonian rain forest and about a race against time to find it's source before loggers destroy the area.

Fair enough if I get the chance I might just watch it one day.

Well then how can you blame the leopard?

I think you are reading too much into what I said. Blame as in responsiblity. If the lepard eats a speices into extinction, then the lepard hold more responsiblity for the extinction than the extinct animal for not adapting to the lepard fast enough.

I think you are reading too much into what I said. Blame as in responsiblity. If the lepard eats a speices into extinction, then the lepard hold more responsiblity for the extinction than the extinct animal for not adapting to the lepard fast enough.

But a predator like the leopard will not be able to hunt its prey to extinction as its own population would crash before it was able to do it. It would require some external factor, like humans, to create the instability where that kind of scenario could happen.

Now this thread is not what you thought it was going to be about.

While talking amongst people today after a few tangents on our original topic we started talking about Pandas, the 'greenie' is our group said how this animal was near extinction and that the reason for it was because humans have destroyed vast areas of its habitat, and that this was the reason why many species became extinct every year throughout the world.

For argument's sake (at least I think it was) another person in this group counteracted this statement by saying that the reasons why animal species became extinct was not because of humans destroying their habitat but rather that animals were unable to adapt to their new environments and simply said that the extinction of these animals was due to natural selection and it was all about survival of the fittest. Needless to say a good argument broke out.

However, before this turns into a blog I will ask NSG, do you think that humans are purely to blame for extiction of species or does natural selection being that the species are unable to adapt to new surrondings come into play.Well, yeah, from the social Darwinist point of view, pandas deserve to die out because they can't learn to dodge cars or eat other things or make do with less terrain. From an intrinsic value or Christian stewardship point of view, pandas should be protected from human influence when it causes them extinction.

But a predator like the leopard will not be able to hunt its prey to extinction as its own population would crash before it was able to do it. It would require some external factor, like humans, to create the instability where that kind of scenario could happen.Not true. Overgrazing by elk or deer where there is a lack of predators has happened, does happen, and likely will continue to happen. It often ends up with the entire population dying, along with anything else that needed the fodder the hoofies ate up. Sure, these situations only really occur due to human influence, however it is usually indirect, such as the historical removal of predators or the introduction of a new species.

Not true. Overgrazing by elk or deer where there is a lack of predators has happened, does happen, and likely will continue to happen. It often ends up with the entire population dying, along with anything else that needed the fodder the hoofies ate up. Sure, these situations only really occur due to human influence, however it is usually indirect, such as the historical removal of predators or the introduction of a new species.

That is not a predator/prey situation. It is an example of a species destroying its own environment.

Ultimately, the blame must fall not on the humans but on the hungry hungry hippos. When they run out of plastic marbles to eat, they've often eliminated entire species in just one hunt :(

But a predator like the leopard will not be able to hunt its prey to extinction as its own population would crash before it was able to do it. It would require some external factor, like humans, to create the instability where that kind of scenario could happen.

Meh whatever, but come on now, lets not take one little example I used to show that human destruction of habitat leading to extinction is not the resposiblity of the extinct, but the humans, out of context and twist it into a whole other argument huh.

Unfortunately, evolution doesn't work by "adaptation" at all.

Nothing "adapts" to changes in environment. Rather, those creatures better able to survive the changes do so, and those less able die. Mutations that improve survivability spread through a population, as may those that neither help nor hinder, while those that impede survival tend to die off before reproducing - unless, of course, an environmental change takes place that suddenly makes that mutation valuable.

Since mutation is a statistical variable based on generations and randomness, it takes a very long time. The changes we are making upon many areas of the Earth's surface are too radical for most species to have a "surviving remnant" with the traits needed to survive the change - it acts more like a natural disaster than like gradual environmental change.

I think you are reading too much into what I said. Blame as in responsiblity. If the lepard eats a speices into extinction, then the lepard hold more responsiblity for the extinction than the extinct animal for not adapting to the lepard fast enough.

Ok fair enough

That is not a predator/prey situation. It is an example of a species destroying its own environment.Same happens to ants. That is a predator/prey situation.

Unfortunately, evolution doesn't work by "adaptation" at all.

Nothing "adapts" to changes in environment. Rather, those creatures better able to survive the changes do so, and those less able die. Mutations that improve survivability spread through a population, as may those that neither help nor hinder, while those that impede survival tend to die off before reproducing - unless, of course, an environmental change takes place that suddenly makes that mutation valuable.

Since mutation is a statistical variable based on generations and randomness, it takes a very long time. The changes we are making upon many areas of the Earth's surface are too radical for most species to have a "surviving remnant" with the traits needed to survive the change - it acts more like a natural disaster than like gradual environmental change.Actually, changes in an environment have been shown to trigger genetic changes.

Actually, changes in an environment have been shown to trigger genetic changes.

To some extent, foreign substances in the environment might trigger mutations in general simply due to mutating factors, but I have never heard of a change in an environment spontaneously triggering genetic changes to counter that change.

It's not like if you introduce a new, faster predator to an environment that this will trigger the genes of the prey to make them run faster.

Mass extinctions has always occur before the existence of man kind. Take Permian-Triassic extinction for example. Its not so much that animals evolve to adopt during this period. Rather 95% of species dies, which gives room to new species to emerge over time. Animals doesn't just evolve to adopt to huge environmental changes over the time frame of 100 years, and survival of the fittest is extremely outdated when talking about modern evolutionary theories.

Blame animals for not adopting? Be careful what you are wishing for.

Existing animals, without evolution, do adopt. When we see bears coming to town to dig garbage bags, they are adopting. Of course people do tend to freak out when they see a bear adopting in their backyard, and I haven't even mention all the rats, pigeons, and mosquitoes that learn to adopt to live in urban areas. Clearly most of us don't want to share the living space with those wild animals.

So when humans decided to take up all the space for ourselves, combine with other human phenomenons like hunting, fishing, pollution, agriculture, etc, we in fact do contribute to mass extinctions. This is to say that, yes animals comes and go naturally, yes mass extinction do occur during the earth's history, but we do play a major role in increasing the rate in this particular case.

Well Pandas are absolutly worthless creatures anyway, but it is definatly not always people fault, it is a combination of factors that cause animals to go extinct.

Are humans responsible for 100% of the current extinctions? No.

Are humans responsible for approximately 99.99% of the current extinctions? Indubitably.

The current extinction rates are between 100 and 10,000 times higher than normal background extinction rates. That is a number comparable to the five great mass extinctions in the fossil record. You know how you learned in elementary school how all the dinosaurs were wiped out? That's the sort of change we're making to the ecosystem right now. It's pretty terrifying, really.

Of course, there's a natural part. And of course, the Earth's biosphere can adapt to nearly anything.

But when we're talking about saving the environment, the key problem doesn't stem from mercy for animals, or responsibility, or even basic decency. The environment will survive us, humanity is just like another Chixculub disaster, the fittest will survive it.

The problem is that we're not gonna like the new environment. We're adapted to this one, but there's more - the better the conditions, the less hostile is the animal life. We lead higher mammals to extinction, what do you think will replace them, pokemons?
Instead of fluffy kitties, who through a million years of genetic memory have learned not to attack humans, we'll have poisonous spiders and insects, rats, inedible fish, specialized human parasites, mosquitoes immune to human-tolerable poisons, bacteria and viruses immune to medicines... oh wait, the last two are already happening.

Are humans responsible for 100% of the current extinctions? No.

Are humans responsible for approximately 99.99% of the current extinctions? Indubitably.

The current extinction rates are between 100 and 10,000 times higher than normal background extinction rates. That is a number comparable to the five great mass extinctions in the fossil record. You know how you learned in elementary school how all the dinosaurs were wiped out? That's the sort of change we're making to the ecosystem right now. It's pretty terrifying, really.

yeah, our impact, while natural in some sense, is more akin to a giant fucking rock from space slamming into the planet than the process of branching and pruning that typically goes on. and this time, the rock isn't solely newtonian (presumably), so there is blame to be assigned.

Part of the arrogance of mankind is the belief that they are separate from the natural world and everything they do, for better or for worse, is humanity's work and not nature's.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for environmental preservation for knowledge's sake. Ever see the movie, "Medicine Man"?

This, of course, requires you to prove that knowledge is intrinsically good. Which is all well and good for us privileged NSG posters; but the poor Brazilian farmers that only get to eat if they burn the forest down and farm the land aren't particularly worried about cancer at the moment, since they're too busy starving.

Not agreeing or disagreeing, just pointing out how morally complicated the issue is.