If only humans would die out !!!
9
Wow, this is the best thing I've read on conservation in quite a long time. An honest, balanced account of the true nature of the circumstances surrounding our place in the natural order of things. Thank you. First off, I am going to say I am a conservationist through and through. I am not, however, a conservationist who believes we must "save" every other species on the planet. The commenters who believe the planet would be a "better" place without humans take a narrow and shallow view of natural history. Did you all not read Jennifer's paragraph on the cataclysm 250 million years ago that wiped out 95 percent of the ocean's species and 70 percent of the land species? Yes, we have unprecedented ability to alter, to accelerate processes that have been going on with and without us for eons. That we, one species, a blip in the history of Earth might "destroy" the planet is another form of our hubris. The planet has been destroyed and reborn more times than we puny beings know. A better approach than to lament all things Homo sapiens sapiens, to go all welzschmeirzy about our existence. Romantic but not helpful. We need to roll up our sleeves and come up with a plan. Instead, the global trend is less cooperation, more isolationism. The answer is not to wipe out our own species, that will happen in due time, folks. The answer is to start acting like a species and not 8 billion racist creatures consisting of greedy, violent, war-prone tribes.
14
We spend billions on cancer treatment. should these cancer prone people go extinct. The money saved could support all the world conservation efforts. So many would be horrified by our letting natural order of things run its course, but happily turn a blind eye on the rest of the biome.
5
As Homero Aridjis wrote in 1995, "The twenty-first century will become a century of ecological Noahs, of men and women who are driven to create biotic arks to save those ecosystems and species that are vanishing in a
flood of extinction.
Like the character in Sophie’s Choice who has to decide which of her two
children to save, the moral dilemma of this homo ecologicus will lie in choosing
which places and which creatures to select, on what knowledge and wisdom
to base the choice, in light of which social and economic conditions,
which criteria to use—biological, scientific, economic, aesthetic, moral?—
and how to convince other people to preserve life.
And who is this homo ecologicus, to decide on the fate and the right to
exist of other creatures and forms of life, whose mystery surpasses his own
intelligence and capacity for action or thought? Isn’t there a chance that he
will get lost in the labyrinth of eschatology, the doctrine of last and final
things, as so many writers and visionaries before him have gotten lost in the
practice of their art or religion?
It is not enough to preserve individual survivors of over-exploited species
in botanical gardens or in zoos—they need to be preserved in the places
where they are born and reproduce, where their life support is found. Their
habitat must be their sanctuary." {News of the Earth, p. 378)
4
Should some species be allowed to die out? Perhaps someday someone will pose this question about homo sapiens (I'm sure some already have). Although I shudder at the thought, the rest of the biome might collectively sigh in relief.
7
Absolutely, nature should be able to take it's course without human intervention
3
Humans did intervene they introduced invasive species and diseases.
5
But the humans are the ones destroying all these species. Maybe if we stopped artificial insemination and life support, there would be fewer humans destroying the planet. Let nature take its course!
9
Humans: STOP breeding like subway rats. Yes, I'm talking to you.
WE are the real problem, just admit it. Enough.
16
How can we argue that some species should be allowed to become extinct when so many species are facing extinction out of the willful actions of us? That's just not a question that we can ask out of our pure arrogance. Instead, we should be asking what must we do so that we don't contribute to the existence of other species.
5
Pruitt and Zinke are thrilled with your article. For them, extinction can't come soon enough.
1
Earth is the Garden of Eden and according to the christian bible we were thrown out long ago. I suggest the the christians start the exodus by themselves departing this planet that no human "god" had any part in creating.
11
Funny part is that this was written by and is being read by members of the most endangered species of all—most endangered and most dangerous, of course.
3
I wish humans were endangered but, like roaches, it seems we can survive anything.
3
It's quite possible that the species GOP may be extinct by 2020.
6
They are the “canary in the mine”. Stephen Hawkings was clear that the planet has 90 years. We are doomed by global warming and complacency.
Trumps insanity undermines all positive international efforts.
3
Do you mean species like humans? Because as a result of this White House and its antiscience, antiprogressive ideology, the climate is going to take care of us.
3
Of course they should be saved. Why are you writing these articles?
2
"Should some species be allowed to die out?" Typical human god-complex hubris.
1
How many species need to die out before the human race recognizes we are next?
2
99.9 percent of all species evolved on this planet have gone extinct. Let Nature take its course.
1
Sorry, but that is not true.
1
DKM, Garz is correct. Google it and you will get confirmation.
1
It is commendable that we try to save endangered species but in one sense I wonder why. After all, the average life span of any species is about a million years, so all species will come to an end at some point anyway. So why do we feel that we need to get involved in the natural process of evolutionary change? Yes, humans are the cause of many of the extinctions occurring now, but perhaps we should be proactive and correct our behavior before it causes extinction rather than reactive and try to fix what we broke after it is broken. Doing so would require us to dramatically change ourselves, which is not going to happen, so we will continue to put band-aids on the many things we break on this planet, and use that as a sort of penitence for the fact that we refuse to change ourselves to live in better harmony with the rest of the planet to begin with.
3
Only a short sighted and crass society seeks to measure everything in dollars and cents....
15
G.A. - You are living in a fantasy world if you think economics don't apply to endangered species. For better or worse, the economics of making choices about resources and where to apply them does apply and the reality is that hard choices have to be made. The same is true in treating battlefield wounded; it is called triage. And the same is true for a mother bird feeding her chicks - often the weakest one will be starved by the mother so that the others get more food and have a better chance of surviving. This is the reality of life.
1
No.
We're not God. We should stop acting like humans have a right to make these choices.
2
Allowed to die out or allowed to be killed by human activity?
15
We are the extinction event. And events are going to overwhelm us.
11
I'm not religious, but I thought those who are believe that God made every living thing and only he can decide what should live or die? Isn't that the message of the anti-choice protesters? Supposing that's true, how do we know that God won't eventually tire of us destroying his creation and turn on us, as the bible says he has done in times past? Why aren't religious leaders preaching against destruction of the planet? How do we know that God didn't create the akikiki for some reason that we cannot understand and should not question? If you believe in God and the bible, then shouldn't you also believe that to choose to allow the bird is to die out is destroying God's work, and humans might pay dearly for that? Why aren't religious groups at the forefront of protecting endangered species as a way to protect God's creations?
12
Mother Earth may not wait for God to make that decision . . . she may implement changes herself and kick us off the planet!
1
Better to look at what is causing the downfall (extinction) of some species, and then determine a better course of human "evolution", for it usually is humanity at the core of any kind of imbalance of flora or fauna.
We know WE are the problem. To aim for rationale in some perverted sense of justification for "allowing" species to die out is further proof that as a species, we are becoming more and more degenerate.
Rather sick, we humans.
9
Today them, tomorrow us.
Time is short, our resources finite and dwindling. Proposals to spend vast sums to colonize the Moon, or Mars, rather than to save our biosphere from our own depredations insure extinction of our species.
11
If we could harvest even .1% of the total resources and energy in just our local solar system, the human race could live on for millenia...
Can humans survive without biodiversity? Do we want to live in a world where only farm animals still exist?
5
Environments with low diversity are very prone to disruptions. Population explosions and crashes are extremely common. they are less efficient and the environments extremely unstable from year to year. A weedy empty lot is what our future will look like.
There are simply TOO MANY PEOPLE. And instead of using our scientific knowledge to control our own population, making for a more pleasant world and more just allocation of resources -- not to mention more habitat for the amazing diversity of life on this planet -- we've largely abandoned public advocacy for birth control and family planning. When I was a child, many countries put out postage stamps advocating family planning. You never see that now. The religious community has hijacked the conversation, and the losers are the rhinos, the akikikis, the manatees and whales and elephants and pangolins and the list goes on and on and on...
15
Capitalism demands consumer growth. Thus conservation and capitalism are antithetical. I can't see America renouncing capitalism. Too bad for the planet and all there on.
1
Should we not be destroying habitat and micromanaging species when we can't even manage our own well enough to survive? We continue to destroy the very home upon which we live severing the links of a chain that has given this planet its characteristics and which every living creature needs to live. Yet we still behave as if this planet's survival is infinite no matter our behavior. And when and if we do wake up, that spaceship that is able to take us to another planet that may sustain life - which we will again surely destroy - will only allow just a few of the remaining humans and leave the rest behind to suffer a lingering demise. We are a failed experiment.
1
I do believe in the "survival of the fittest." But humans stack the deck against the natural world. Humans are systematically killing off our ecosystem either for survival or greed.
I cant think a world without, Kauai, elephants, polar bears, yes- pandas, rhinos, owls, birds, cheetahs, etc. Who are we to judge if others want to stand up, advocate and care for creatures or plant life, that humans are eradicating intended or not.
4
Survival of the fittest isn't the survival of the strongest it is the survival of the population best adapted to the local environment.
5
As the US military budget reaches $700 billion, we wring our hands about the relatively infinitessimal amounts spent on conserving biological diversity. Even these tiny amounts are just too much for some people, just as we skimp on health care and education. The claim that endangered species aren't worth the trouble is a tired and dishonest argument, as it has been for decades: the people trying to weaken the ESA aren't the slightest bit interested in anything other than wringing ever more money out of the planet. It's no coincidence that these proposals, which this article incorrectly represents as serious policy alternatives, originate from the political right wing where anything that interferes with the flood of money for political corruption is considered un-American. Imagine what could be achieved if the land managing and research agencies actually had enough funding to do their job properly. Declaring some species "too difficult to save" is a politically cynical cover for a very dirty game.
6
As an ecologist, there are two thoughts I'd like to share.
1. In nature and over time, it is normal for species to go extinct--it's been happening for millions of years and it will continue to happen. The Earth changes--species distributions change, some are able to change their behaviors and adapt, or have mutations that lead to evolution allowing them to cope with the new conditions but some do not. This is all perfectly natural.
2. What is not natural is the amount of change Earth is experiencing because of humans. The leading causes are climate change and habitat destruction. For climate change, it really does not matter whether one believes in climate change or not--it's a fact, it doesn't matter what your opinion is. Habitat destruction (outside of climate change) because of increasing development is one of the primary reasons that so many species are becoming endangered. As a result, it is extremely difficult to figure out which species are going extinct because of what humans have done and which species are going extinct because it's their time to go. I lean towards the conservation side--because humans are causing so much change, we should do everything we can.
The biggest carbon footprint is bringing another person into this world. Governments need to think about what is sustainable for the Earth. Tax breaks for having kids does not make any sense if we want to preserve the planet on which we live.
13
I'm not sure how Rob Bishop became the House Natural Resources Committee chair but we can safely assume these legislative efforts are operating in bad faith. I'd say we have a fox guarding the hen house expect Bishop wants to kill all the foxes and use our National Parks to breed more hens. Dan Newhouse's H.R. 1274 is particularly insidious. "Best available science and commercial data available" basically means state sponsored science denial. We know how this legal language will be used in practice.
That said, let's examine the legitimate issue concerning the Endangered Species Act. Presumably, the list of conservation-reliant species is only going to grow over time. Even the moderate estimates concerning climate change predict a mass wave of extinctions in the increasingly not-too-distant future. We're not going to be able to save every species nor necessarily should we. If a species is conservation-reliant with no opportunity for reintroduction, we've already failed. The species is effectively extinct. We have a zombie species.
The real debate therefore becomes what form of environmental triage should we implement? The goal of conservation is no longer conservation for conservation's sake. We're now engaged in a global form of risk mitigation. How do determine what species an ecosystem can most afford to lose? The scientific community should have sorted this question out at some point over the last 40 years. Now Rob Bishop is sorting it for you. Good luck.
2
We should have a national day of celebration as the next Democratic President ceremoniously removes this deplorable legislation. As he ceremoniously removes the environmental , worker safety and consumer deregulations of the Trump regime. None of these regulations were debated it was lobbyist and Republican toady. We need to make sure Trumpism is removes and flushed from American Politics.
I could care less if some species goes extinct. 99.999% of all the species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. Most of the extinctions occurred before man showed up. It’s what is supposed to happen.
But if we want to discuss real problems (global warming, the energy crisis, etc.), the solution is population control. No one in a position of leadership has the courage to address this but there are no solutions to these problems until population control is addressed.
2
Yes 99.9% have gone extinct. When it happens over a short time bad thing happen. Mass extinction always includes the top species, in this era the top species is Man
The growth of technology and transportation will continue to reshape the planet. Conservation seeks to thwart the inevitable.
The article's title asks a good question. We should be discussing how to prioritize conservation to make it more effective rather than adhering to an inefficient blanket policy of saving everything. In the end, I doubt the richness of my life would be different if certain sloth species still roamed the earth.
It is hard not to conclude that the ultimately planet killer is us, humans. It seems that as we move to feed more and more, we are moving to mono cultures, fewer species of plants, animal feeding for human food, and in the process creating human diseases that promise to limit human growth but not before consuming vast resources in maintaining life damaged by our self imposed food regimes. Seems nature is such as to limit all over growth.... ultimately its food sources lead to decline of the species.
7
There's certainly ONE species whose disappearance would benefit all others: Homo sapiens. If we were half as "sapiens" as we tend to think, it would be a far different world.
Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson noted part of the problem in his 2015 book, "The Meaning of Human Existence," writing that we, as a species, are "innately dysfunctional." So it often seems, to the detriment of the entire planet.
34
So many comments note the harm our species does. That harm is not a natural product of man's existence. Rather, it's the product of man's inability -- or unwillingness, rather -- to rein in its growth. Too many people delight in showing of their multiple children. Too many others encourage them.
Unless man accepts birth control -- no, not condoms and pills, that is encouragement, not control -- the species is doomed. A possible -- but socially and, by the fastest growing religion, Islam, unacceptable -- international law would be that every woman have a tubal ligation after her first child, until we get the 8 billion world population to a sustainable number that need not rape the planet for survival. I opine that that would be at about one tenth of today'd number.
37
A vasectomy is a less invasive surgery - each man should have one after fathering his first child.
6
That's half the story. The other quarter is man's spreading out into habitat and destroying it instead of building up. And the final quarter is man's irresponsible use of their environment. Our planet is becoming one big landfill and our air is becoming a toxic mix of methane. We're heading to a dead planet. Glad I won't be here and glad I never had children to leave behind.
3
Or we could make all men get vasectomies but, you know, sexism.
Yes. Humans.
14
The simple answer is forget the detail. The human race is increasing at an unsustainable rate and we should put a lot more resources into birth control. Our species is at the cost of every other species except farmed species which are preserved for food.
31
And what about the ecosystems species sustain? Does that no longer matter too? In any case this idea of humans selecting which species should survive our march toward self annihilation is a distraction and useless to human survival. The planet will do just fine without our penchant to exploit everything to extinction and replace all with human garbage and trash.
13
human hubris and exceptionalism are seemingly boundless. while human activities do have deleterious effects on the environment and on habitat, and human vanity kills animals for ivory and plumage, extinction is also a natural process that goes on with or without us ( and, as a species we are not immune to extinction...that should give pause...best bet i have is it won't )...leaving any decision about what species is and is not saved in the hands of humans seems foolish and unnatural. unless you stop industrial capitalism and agriculture many are doomed. that cessation seems unlikely. learn to live with the consequences of your acts or change your behaviors. "to blame it and to lament it is not to change it"-oswald spengler.
4
The species with the lowest "value" is homo sapiens. We spread rapidly & destroy everything in our paths. We are the species that should not be preserved.
20
The most invasive species is we humans. We need a couple of good worldwide pandemics to clear out a good bunch of us.
23
Have read through this a couple times to be sure I am being objective, and I really think the framing of this article is incredibly problematic.
Why is it never discussed that the "huge" amounts of money being spent to save species like the akikiki are a drop in the bucket compared to something like fossil fuel subsidies?
Why is it never questioned that human needs should be above the needs of other beings with their own unique lifeways?
There's a bias throughout this article, which seems to aim to be fair by reporting on what conservationists think, but the journalist has left out huge pieces of the picture that reveal she seems to take the inherent good or necessity of our extractive capitalist system with increasing inequality (between the world's wealthiest beings, and all the beings that possess little or no capital).
A number of the ways she frames issues show a deep unexamined bias, such as emphasizing the "ridiculousness" of the biologists working to save the akikiki rather than choosing to show heroism and sacrifice. And of course the title of the article, which is horrifying honestly...like saying "Should we allow the Rohingya to die out?" and then spending most of the article talking about how expensive and difficult humanitarian aid is and how useless diplomacy is—rather than framing in a way which suggests we must face up to the difficulties of this task, even if it means transforming our culture...
20
I came to exactly the same conclusion. Anthropocentric, arrogant. This article operates from the presumption that we humans can harvest and despoil at will, and pick and choose what species to “save”.
2
It will happen anyway, because we can’t help,ourselves.
2
What happens when the mother bird returns to her nest to find all the eggs gone?
5
This happens in nature constantly. A squirrel or crow could have eaten them all, even mice eat bird eggs when they can. The birds are used to this, and often cope just by laying another clutch of eggs. If they get stolen too, the birds will usually abandon that nest, build another, and lay more eggs- if there is still time in the year and energy for more eggs.
1
The author misses a very important point or two. First, the USFWS does indeed have a post-listing planning tool for the prioritization of resources in dealing with listed species, incorporating such things as taxonomic uniqueness, ecological services provided, difficulty of recovery, etc. (see Federal Register). Second, it is really imperative to list species ONLY based upon their biological status. This is a vital tool to humanity to essentially keep a scorecard of where we're at; how are our actions affecting our planet and the living organisms we share it with. What to do about the species on the list, and how to allocate resources on their behalf, is a completely different exercise, and one that should rightfully incorporate other parameters such as economic consequences. Of course it goes without saying that those attempts to rewrite and weaken the ESA and the listing process are designed solely to remove impediments to development. Fine if "we the people" elect to ignore or not worry about listed species, but not fine to not at least acknowledge what they are and what our impacts are. Let's be truthful and go into our decisions with the facts right up-front.
2
10,000 people died today of starvation, and you're worried about the baby seals? - flipper, "we don't understand"
1
Yes, Flipper, you certainly don't understand. Assuming your number of deaths from starvation is accurate - you do realize that they did not die because humans don't have enough food, right? They died because of politics, racism, and a general lack of compassion. If all the American billionaires got together and donated a tiny fraction of their incomes to just feeding the hungry - there would instantly be no hunger anywhere on the planet.
The baby birds have nothing to do with human hunger - except that the LIES about humans needing "more food!" - actually, big corporations needing more profits - are the major reason the baby birds are dying.
3
They are both a sign= of the same problem. We are a very rich planet why can't we do both instead of not caring about both. Instead of tearing down a forest for exotic decorative hardwoods these folks should seek their profit feeding the hungry.
The cause of all of this destruction (and the poisoning of the earth generally) is the gross overpopulation of humans. The solution is obvious.
13
Greed too, we don't need exotic hardwoods Rhino horn or tacky dead elephant souvenirs. Maybe we should ask why are we allowing some people to profit from such silly trinkets destroying a forest in the process.
1
In my Wildlife Politics book (Cambridge University Press, 2017) I discuss how human's attachment to charismatic species drives political conflicts over wildlife--focus on ecosystems & their habitats makes better sense but political logic requires focus on threatened species. With humans populations every increasing & altering every land & ocean, it is time to focus on stewardship of other species. Currently Zinke is rushing to degrade conservation--the only wildlife he cares about are those he can shoot for trophies--see my documented list of 99 Reasons why he is worst ever Secretary of Interior at https://www.wildlifepolitics.org/blog
5
All this hand wringing...yet Trump.
1
Thank you for asking this rhetorical question for which there is an increasingly obvious answer: YES, it is long past time to accept the inevitable loss of some plant and animal species that are no longer adapted to our changed and changing environment and the realities of modern civilization.
Those who continue to defend the costly and futile attempt to save doomed species are largely employees of the “restoration” industry, a multi-million dollar industry employing millions of people whose efforts would be better spent doing something less destructive. Though they are widely admired for their commitment, they are inflicting a great deal of damage on the environment by killing plants and animals, using copious amounts of toxic pesticides, destroying landscapes that are often beloved and that are serving the needs of the animals who live in them.
When the climate changes, the landscape changes. When previously isolated ecosystems such as Hawaii become connected to the outside world, their previously protected occupants are vulnerable to competition. Since we are apparently unwilling or unable to do anything constructive to stop climate change and we aren’t likely to build a wall around places like Hawaii, these are changes that we must tolerate.
"Since the late 1980s, critics have argued that the act limits industry and also hurts ranchers and loggers, for instance, by preventing ranchers from shooting wolves that prey on their livestock (a prohibition that has now largely been repealed)."
The problem is not that wolves are over-protected; the problem is that there is a war on wolves. Politicians and bureaucrats favor special interests, including the hunting and ranching industries.
Hunters should become familiar with the positive role of predators, and ranchers should protect their livestock with non-lethal deterrence.
13
The "wolf conversation" is one of the best places I know to study the amazing inability of humans to hear logical, evidence based arguments, and learn.
I've been involved for decades, and have had proponents from both ends of the argument essentially "hang up" on me when I cited an incontrovertible fact that didn't fit into their fantasies.
Logic - is of very - very - limited value when arguing against "faith".
1
This is an issue only because we focus conservation on specific animals rather than on ecosystems. The natural state of animal populations is that over time they increase and decrease as various aspects of their ecosystem changes. This causes those concerned to freak out about what they view as important species. The key is not to focus on specific species but on ecosystems. In ecosystems there are different flows of food, energy, water etc. These have varying impacts on species contained therein. But if we preserve the ecosystem, the number of a specific species will vary with time; that is natural and no surprise. So, stop focusing on specific species and start focusing on preservation of ecosystems.
5
Actually many conservation efforts are aimed at ecosystem. And it is common knowledge saving elephants and their environment saves thousand of other species as well.
Honoring the earth resides with preserving as many species as we can, however we can. It won't be entirely successful, but giving up - because it's inconvenient - feels like a repudiation of living and of the richness of the earth.
7
Unfortunately the task has become pretty clear cut. The species that we should most be worried being extinguished is humankind. Thus, since it is inevitable that we will have to choose which species to try and protect, the most important criteria should be what they contribute to the survival of the planet and people. Being cute, cuddly or photogenic should count for very little. The clock is running on the human species.
JWP...and so? (tacky adding your advert there) Do you really believe such an equation can be constructed, wherein any endangered or not species can be inserted and show how it will or will not save humans..? Akin to proving a single brick is crucial to the integrity of the whole wall. I can pull a brick and the wall doesn't fall. But will that lost brick cause issues down the line? Yeah, very likely it will.
Your idea is not only mathematically impossible, its also shortsighted and dealing with vague immediacies, only identified in the moment, and have no clue as to what may come in the future. If we save this cow, this family will have milk. Uh Oh, but the saved cow just infected the herd next door.
We have no idea what even keeps us humans going as a species, outside of our insatiable sex drive. Which is not exactly helping most humans cope with their varying under duress environments.
How 'bout the equation that includes insects. Especially those we deem pests, that when better understood, play a crucial role in the survival of dozens and dozens of other species, from insects up to higher order mammals.
IF humans want to survive we need to better protect our natural resources, and that includes diversity - be they animal, plant or mineral.
Look to how poorly humans have kept themselves safe from natural disasters by manipulating the environments to suit immediate needs. Filling in natural drainage paths to build roads. Only to see cities like Houston flood.
2
Where conservation stops and biology begins has never been very clear in the field of conservation biology. The arguments running through the field often are vague, flawed, and overly mechanistic. The concepts and syllogisms do not necessarily follow from science. Conservation biologists like to insist that every species must be preserved for an ecosystem (itself a problematic term with no clear bounding) to remain resilient (which still can't be measured) against invasives (a term that makes no distinction between natural and artificial introductions, and that flowed from late-nineteenth-century fears about ethnic immigration to the United States). The research overuses the concept of "keystone species" (a term first applied to starfish but rarely so well documented in most other species) and usually applied to salmon, owls, wolves, and other "charismatic species" (a term that nods to cultural, not ecological factors). And it goes on and on. The problems with the ESA and its intent to save everything has been debated and criticized since before it actually became law in 1973. The ESA doesn't distinguish between useful and non-useful, or cheap and expensive. Its focus on species rather than habitat has also been a fundamental flaw since Day 1. But most of all is its political and fiscal unreasonableness in insisting that everything must be saved. We need a more sophisticated way to deal with species and habitats, and conservation biology is a problematic scientific approach.
1
Yep, those are all the arguments from the people who want to drill for oil and gas on the Sage Grouse preserves.
And all half-truths, or just wrong. And ignorant. The law protects all endangered species - not at all out of ill-conceived sentiment as industrialists sneer - but out of pure hard science.
The science? It's a hard factual admission that - right now we do not KNOW which species are hugely important to the world. The fact that they are in trouble does not indicate they are insignificant. Pacific yew is a poster-child there- you know someone whose life has been saved because it was protected. Scientifically- other species can easily prove to be as important in the future. WE DO NOT KNOW. That's the scientific attitude, stripped of all pretensions.
Protecting endangered species should not be just about the species, but also the habitat. The endangered species act has helped preserve millions of acres of habitat that would have been destroyed by development or natural resource extraction and exploitation. Captive breeding can only be successful if accompanied by habitat preservation and restoration.
12
Preserving many species is all about valuing the existence of habitats [ at least the habitats that will be able exist under global climatic changes] they need to survive as if those areas were as precious as an oil field or electronics factory. We don;t even really value our water resource sufficienty as a part of neessar human habitat!
The endangered species act has been vital, as far as it goes ( and we know the pressure it is under now)
One challenge is that even nonendangered species are at risk of severe declines because of how we live in our suburban areas, where many common species, so called, are being slowly destroyed or pressured because of our insistence on a pattern of housing and development which leave nothing but islands of habitat.
5
How many habitats and species do you propose preserving and protecting?
How, when, where and why do you propose preserving and protecting those habitats and species?
2
I do not understand the point of such nonsensical questions except to shut down discussion. Cannot one be in favor of the concept and philosophy of conservation and preservation without having a detailed plan to carry it out?
It is sad but true. Humans may not save all the beauty and grace and power that is shown in animals. Endangered species. What of humans, the endangering species?
8
Humans should not be allowed to destroy the earth, by overpopulating it with their kind , but only climate change will stop them.
6
Exactly. The endangering species should start reevaluating the beliefs and values that have led us to be such irresponsible members of the planet.
4
Continue to make environmental science and research on the forefront of news, even if it hurts and it disgusting and sad. Talk about it to everyone you know and especially umpires kids. Be aware of what is going on in the world. I don’t know where to begin with conservationist other than what is right in front of me. Start with what you can do, like using as little plastic as possible- that’s a big one actually. Try not buying clothes for a year and using what you have. Don’t eat animals. There is just SO MUCH devastation and extinction everywhere you look, this at least is something that is relatively easy and it will help.
12
I am reminded of Agent Smith's words in The Matrix:
Human beings are not actually mammals. They are a virus.
Great movie!
13
From the perspective of a virus, bacteria, protozoan or fungus, we humans are habitat, pets and domestic livestock.
About 70% of mammals are rodents, bats and shrews.
2
Yes. Stinkbugs.
1
you know you are overly privileged when you start thinking that saving the pretty bird is more important than saving the starving child.
3
The loss of the pretty bird reflects the loss of habitat which is contributing to the depleted environment which results in a starving child.
19
Foolish. This is about the ability to sustain life on earth. And for what it is worth - many - even the poor and starving - find comfort and inspiration in the natural world. I would say those who don't care a fig about that starving child are the ones most likely to devalue other species as well, because they do not have immediate material value for them.
15
Those two elements cannot be compared. Life is valuable, no matter which kind it is. However, people always tend to speak about how moral they are, how caring, and, if I may bring religion into the equation, we allegedly are the lords over all beings, the stewards of Earth . The last time I read up on stewardship, that means protecting resources, both animate and inanimate, not mismanaging them even to the destruction of entire areas of land, or eradicating species which have always had their place in nature. Humans are the most destructive life-forms I can imagine. They have introduced invasive, harmful species wherever they went, contributing the the disappearance of endemic species - read up on the depredations caused by cats, rats, feral pigs and dogs. I say do everything that is possible to bring endangered species back from the brink - it is our responsibility, for we have put them there.
By the way, I am a member of over 30 years in SOS Children's Villages and of the CBM which combats the causes of blindness, in case someone wants to accuse me of not caring about human beings.
3
To knowingly allow a species to become extinct is a crime against science.
15
I think all species have worth, though I sometimes (oh, i guess at least once a day) wonder about homo sapiens which ravages everything it touches, makes war on itself over idiotic religions or material wealth and is greedy beyond imagination. With a mind strong enough and sensitive enough to know that compassion and kindness and sharing are truly the only way to survive as a species.
12
Why don't HUMANS just stop having so many babies? It is HUMANS that are the invasive species....
38
Agreed. Yet too many in US are against contraception!! Another way not to put down women
2
How about the human species? As we keep going down this downward destructive trail this is only going to end one way. How willfully ignorant will people continue to be?
7
Didn't read the article, just the headline. Answer: Don't assume it should be up to us to decide. Mother Nature is in charge, not humans.
4
Used to be true. Not true anymore. Decisions, and non-decisions made just by humans can and do change the planet.
1
Short answer - yes they should be saved - are they of less intrinsic worth because they have no apparent value to humans? Shame!
11
Try and save all creatures great and small.
7
Let's face it: humans have caused all of this. We take, take, and take from the planet. We reproduce, reproduce, and reproduce. We build, build, and build. We trash the planet. We are the planet's and other species' worst enemy. And now the USA is "led" by one of our worst examples. Is there any hope? At least there are some groups trying.
12
WE are THE invasive species, all nearly 8 billion of us...
14
That even one species goes extinct on our watch is beyond comprehension and more egregious than we seem willing or able to understand. Everything we do has a consequence. Everything we are unwilling to do, also, has a consequence.
After our very brief stewardship of the Earth, we have ruined everything we have come into contact with. Our oceans are impacted by our plastic trash and warming. The skies are littered with our satellites and space junk. The ozone layer is trashed. Our indigenous species, both plant and animal, are suffering from our actions and stupidity.
How do we dare call ourselves civilized?
10
Quite ironic this online piece precedes another article about Trump son whom is facing divorce, and - for whatever reason(s) - get thrills hastening demise of Afrikan elephants.
4
Only our efforts to save other species are saving our own. Otherwise we thoughtless humans will befoul every lake and pocket of air, and cover every last remaining native plant with concrete, chemicals, and plants engineered to eat away at the guts of insects. Disgusting.
8
11 animals that have all gone extinct in the past two centuries thanks to humans:
West African Black Rhinoceros. Pyrenean Ibex. Passenger Pigeon.Quagga.
Caribbean Monk Seal. Sea Mink. Bubal Hartebeest.Tasmanian Tiger.
Tecopa Pupfish.Great Auk.Javan Tiger.
Who’s next?
9
Even worse, in the development of the 'new world': the Americas, Australia & New Zealand, we have absolutely no idea how many species became extinct in the centuries before anyone took an interest in the indigenous lifeforms.
As no record of them exists, there's no way of knowing if the extinctions we are now seeing began as a result of that first incursive depletion.
Eastern Australia had magnificent cedar forests: all gone & the life they supported with them.
11
Or, we could just stop being so destructive. So much of what we do is for someone elses gain, and quite frankly not healthy for ourselves or the world. What stops us from generating a wisdom movement and creating a society and world that aligns with the true Christian value of behaving as the caretakers of this planet instead of the destroyers. Petty tyrants divide us. Ugh. Let's turn our backs on them instead of this world that is actually supporting us.
4
Don't bring religion into this. God never said anything about conservation or limiting our reproduction.
We shouldn't deal with this problem like western medicine taking a pill for each symptom. We need to look at the whole picture and say why is this happening, a lot to many spices. It's climate and encroachment by the growing world population the greed to feed humans to strip the world of natural resources. We need to save our planet.
2
The essential problem is too many humans - we value our existence much higher than other living species. We need to value ALL living things; once we do that, we can change - which will require sacrifice. First, we need desperately to limit human numbers. Birth control, family planning, and empowering women (a pile of evidence shows once women have some power, they have fewer children), are starters. In the United States the key thing to drop the population is to cut immigration into the U.S. by a lot. That is a hard pill to swallow for leftists, liberals, environmentalists (and I'm in all those categories!). But if we want to keep a healthy environment in the U.S., we simply can't allow a million people a year to legally come in. On an added note, the Catholic Church has done huge damage to the world's environment over the years in its frowning on abortion and birth control.
8
Unfortunately the research shows pretty clearly that the "too many people" thing is not really the main issue - it has a lot more to do with the resources each individual consumes. The regions where population is expected to increase the most (and it's tailing off btw) are overwhelmingly the same areas where each person consumes minimal resources (lower-intensity farming, mainly vegetarian diets, not a lot of processed materials, low electricity use, few cars, few plane flights, etc.). The real problem is resource-intensity of lifestyles in developed countries, such as yours and mine (for an interesting look at this from a metabolic perspective, see http://bit.ly/2FQB9bP).
I agree birth control should be available to those who want it (a lot of whom don't have access!) but placing the pressure/blame for the planet's woes on developing countries to curb their populations simply perpetuates harmful stereotypes without addressing the root of the problem. Unless Americans and Europeans can transition to a massively less resource-intensive lifestyle and be willing to just *stay out* of some prime agricultural spaces (closely followed by quickly developing countries like China, India, etc.) whether the population is 7 billion or 9 billion won't ultimately matter that much.
The immigration thing also doesn't even make sense if your argument is "too many people in the world," since those people still exist, whether or not they are in the US...?
1
You need to adjust your thinking.
Last week, the president of Tanzania announced that he is opening up extensive wildlife areas to settlement and agriculture. Because Tanzania is home to much of Africa's little remaining wildlife, this is a very serious nail in biodiversity's coffin.
6
One note to the author, whom I mostly otherwise commend for their article on this incredibly important subject:
Condors didn’t face possible extinction “because of their tendency to fly into power lines”—condors tendency is “to fly,” and some glorified apes pretty recently moved into their neighborhood and started putting electrified wires in their airspace. That’s like saying a woman gets harassed because of her “tendency to wear short skirts.”
We really need to question our deep anthropocentric biases here. In the same way I believe racial inequality is inherently unjust and on the wrong side of history, so too is human exceptionalism—the belief that we’re more special and more important than all other beings. These beautiful “others” have unique life ways and experience the world. Who can even fathom the diversity of emotion, experience, communication, culture and perspective that we lose when we lose a species from this Earth? I hope to see an article in the Times that truly gets past our self-centered perspectives. In the meantime, thank you for your work forward.
5
Considering the massive extinctions of the past, a few species going out now means nothing to the total picture.
1
Wrong. The speed of the current extinction crisis looks like it's dwarfing past (pre-human) disasters.
5
I would have liked fewer photos of helicopters and at least one of an adult bird to see what we might be losing.
2
Karl Marx said that humanity only solve problems when given no other choice. Let's hope he is right.
3
The ‘anti-humanists’ here might be compared to the Rousseauians, who somehow see a noble savage as the human ancestor, with civilization representing a fall from grace. Don’t buy it.
Yes, there’s evil in the world and ignoring the mindless plundering of nature is an evil. Civilization is not evil. We need more of it. The real evil is mindlessness. These good people, using their minds to help save animals imperiled by mindlessness don’t need to be romanticized, they need to be recognized. The most fascinating animals on the globe are humans, when they exercise their humanity—their minds.
1
Romantic nonsense. There are too many of us.
4
Remember that “Mother” Nature ruthlessly wiped out 95% of ALL species that ever accidentally came into being long before humanity had any effect on extinction at all. “Rational” people are irrationally sentimental about a cosmos in which nothing but random meaningless rules everywhere.
2
Saving diversity from a list is going to fail before we start. We need to save habitat, lots of it, big chunks, and right away.
4
That's what we're trying to do in Canada - save huge chunks of habitat. I don't know what we are going to do about polar bears though.
1
It would have been informative if a picture of the adult akikiki had accompanied this article. I already know what scientists look like.
3
Only one species needs to die out--us.
7
Outstanding. Great to see an article that really discusses the issues instead of just mouthing tired cliches.
Should some species be allowed to die out? Homo sapiens comes to mind...
7
Definitely. Humans are the most destructive species on the planet. I can hardly wait for our extinction. Luckily, Trump, Putin, Duterte, Erdogan, Maduro, Xi Poing Netanyahu, Korean Dim Sum are doing their best to achieve it. And let's not leave females out: Huckabee Sanders, Haley, De Vos, the torturer in Chief at the CIA . . . .
4
I suggest the human species.
6
Homo sapiens cannot solve the problem of endangered species, because homo sapiens is the problem. Our insane drive to go forth and multiply, our insatiable appetite, has been consuming all space on the planet driving out every other species.
The solution happily is at hand, artificial intelligence, which will rank humanity equably among all the other denizens of the earth, whose rights to exist are equal to our own, and cull us back to a reasonable proportion, down from the cancerous 9 billion projected for 2042 to perhaps the 1.25 billion of the 1840s when John Stuart Mill wisely pointed out that:
“The density of population necessary to enable mankind to obtain, in the greatest degree, all the advantages both of co-operation and of social intercourse, has, in all the most populous countries, been attained. If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness which it owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population would extirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger but not a better or a happier population, I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will be content to be stationary, long before necessity compels them to it.”
[18.0316.1857]
1
If they die out, they are less fit. Why encourage the destruction of the more fit?
1
first of all let's take trump and his ilk OFF LIFE AND TAXPAYER SUPPORT.
MAN has done so much damage it is hard to know where to begin. Should we stop helping those in need, both human and animal. A Definite NO.
Let's cut the pesticide use, find natural solutions, grow extra to make up for loss to pests and other animals. Species come and go but man has arranged for animals to go faster than nature intended. Every day I see animals run over in the unlikeliest places on the road --meaning they were killed intentionally. In the 20 years that I have been feeding birds primarily , i have seen the natural diminish largely due to pesticide use. WHEN was the last time you scrapped a bug off your windshield. In the 50's when I learned to drive, they were omnipresent--you could even buy a bug scrapper. Like the DODO, those have gone too, all man's doing.
3
A more useful question to ask is when the human species would be wiped out - either naturally or artificially.
3
Alexander von Humboldt was a pioneer in suggesting we humans, the most destructive force of the environment and nature in general, ought to live in an interdependent world for mutual convenience, who already around the 1,800's mentioned human-caused climate change (just don't tell science-denier Trump about it, as he hasn't had a chance to read about it... yet). Extinctions have been the norm for millions of years of course, given nature's cataclisms, but never the malicious kind, by killing the hen laying the golden eggs, for greed. Saving endangered species is a most noble undertaking, as depicted here; just do not count on our 'better angels' to be humble about our ugly past of exploitation, and gross disregard of the untoward results. To date, no repentance of past sins, and our efforts to protect nature from us, I'm afraid, may be too little too late.
3
No. the extinction event we are going through won't last forever. some of the species just need help making over the next 50 to 100 years.
2
What? Explain.
Of course, man (qua man) is an endangered species, too. Anyone who disbelieves this is either delusional or a religious person. The world's current passion for unrestricted growth is certainly accelerating it, but it is inevitable. The financial and intellectual resources being spent on trying to preserve obscure species described in this article, no matter how interesting, could be better spent on work to save the human species from a premature death caused by mismanagement of the planet.
1
A pertinent question relative to our own, human species... Given the sudden enthusiasm for colonizing Mars to prevent the extinction of humans in the event of a third world war, does a species, ours, currently slowly destroying Earth by means of multiple forms of pollution and able to destroy it suddenly with nuclear fission, deserve to be preserved? Or would the cosmos better off without us? And have any would-be Martian colonists had a look at the scenic Martian landscape and considered the prospect of going mad there?
Keeping the planet safe for the least of our species promises that it will remain safe for the "greatest" species. I suppose when all that's left are vultures and pigeons, people will wonder "what happened?"
All the people saying humans should die out are avoiding answering the question, which is a serious and difficult one.
2
How should WE decide who to save? There is the root of every single problem currently facing this country and this planet.
1
It's about caring for the planet that we live on and not being distracted by extremists who belittle efforts to protect snail darter or owl habitats so that they can plunder natural resources. The rapidity with which species are being made extinct should serve as a warning to us. Not protecting the planet and its variety of living things is likely to be our final foolishness since we are ultimately also an endangered species.
1
"it’s hard to argue that their loss impoverishes our experience of the world." That's a reason to drive them to extinction? The richness of our experiences decides whether we cause or allow (almost certainly both) an entire species to survive? I'm not a terribly religious person, not at all in fact, but there is something beyond arrogance that this reflects. Divine or not, this planet is in our custody. As in any other fiduciary relationship, it is not the custodian's preferences or experiences that decide the matter. I firmly believe that we have a duty to all those weaker than us. Legally, a wayward fiduciary is a criminal. Were we to bring God back into it, again not my area of expertise or even interest, we'd call that a sin. And a pretty mortal one at that.
Natural selection, global disasters and evolution have been killing off species for millions of years before humans existed. Whose to say that humans are not a legitimate part of this evolutionary process and that the extinction of species is a part of this process with the ultimate extinction of the human species.
1
We are in the midst of a mass extinction event, caused by humans. Almost all species have eventually gone extinct, but this is the only time a mass extinction event has been the result of one species- us. We are deadly and destructive and if the species causing all the death had been any other species than our own favorite one, we would have been labeled 'invasive' and dealt with severely. We have forgotten that all life on Earth is interconnected with other life, and if we destroy nature, then we destroy ourselves.
2
Was it EO Wilson who determined that we should save 50% of land on earth for natural habitats? Seems like a good compromise to me. Controlling invasive species also seems a worthwhile effort, just look at the amazing work Island Conservation has done on various islands around the world, bringing back native flora and fauna after killing off rats and other invasive species.
1
Natural extinction vs. driven to extinction by man-made hazards. The first—emphasis on NATURAL is preferable to the latter. But, let’s face it, what influence on the process isn’t man-made these days?
A great sci-fi moviescenario would be if we saved something, brought it to another location, where it then thrived and heavily multiplied (a la 'Trouble with Tribbles' episode of Star Trek) and then destroyed the human race.
The vast majority of species that ever existed are gone. Yes humanity is a catastrophic event in the history of evolution. But nothing like the asteroid that wiped out most species about 65 billion years ago. Much less the Great Oxygenation Event. Life will adapt to us. The effort to freeze evolution is vain and misguided.
1
It seems to me we should act selfishly as Darwin suggested. In that sense why not identify which species pose humans the greatest threat? At first I thought of the typical carnivores. But lately they've left us alone. There are several other candidates, however, one of which is actually killing, believe it or not, the deaths of millions of us annually. Unlike carnivores ( lions, tigers, and bears) , this species has been consuming us in greater numbers, rather than lesser, over the years. Let's do something. This is not funny.
We cannot separate species from ecosystems -- unless we want our fond remembrances of natural life to exist only in zoos and aquariums and old photos. It is critical to realize that the elimination of any species has a profound ripple effect related to it's way of life, and thereby deeply effects ecosystem(s) in which they live. We do take some solace in elevating species to "endangered" status, especially if they are pretty or do something we deem beneficial. But this is rather cynical, as it again serves us, rather than promoting the health of the favored ones. As long as humans have the will to dominate, with no intervention, our course is set.
It strikes me that providing protection for species one at a time is an extraordinarily inefficient and expensive way of dealing with this. I would propose that the only meaningful way of protecting species is to expand worldwide the territories under protection from humans in a way to strategically cover broad swathes of ecological niches, each large enough to allow, for instance, animal migrations, as appropriate. Some species may not be covered this way, but on the whole we would probably be much better off in every way.
If we don't stop or slow carbon dioxide pollution and global warming, all other environmental concerns are just deck chairs on the Titanic.
1
One can take an economics view, but add others to the questions here, and do so much more comprehensively. If you’re going to go economics, don’t just dwell on obstacles to business-as-usual, assuming that’s the only way to do things. From a more evolved business perspective, the Wildlife Habitat Council has come up with 16 drivers to voluntarily protect biodiversity. That doesn’t count ethics (downplayed in this article) or the excitement project winners showed at their conference. Who knew businesspeople had something in common with these dedicated conservationists? Ecosystem services were not even mentioned at a recent talk I heard on the economics of climate change. Robert Costanza has estimated their total “worth” as much greater than world GNP! This article doesn’t mention the biggie: if we keep losing species, we risk…us. And there are others, such as in a couple of other recent NYT articles: nature as inspiration for art, and for energy-saving architecture. Let’s give this problem the urgency it deserves, while seeking to develop in much more benign ways (e.g. can globalization avoid spreading invasive species?), and expect more from businesses, including landscape suppliers. We shouldn’t give up on tapping into ethics, which may already be there; creativity, such as civic science; lifelong education, such as better informed home gardeners, and re-visit zoos and check out the educational displays. If we have to make the hard decisions, let’s do so better informed.
1
I started reading this article with an answer in mind to the titular question: No. But after reading it I've realized - as I so often do when reading pieces like this or books like Elizabeth Kolbert's "The Sixth Extinction" - that there is *one* species that I sadly realize can - and apparently will - go extinct, and it's us. Our willful disregard for the planet and, under this administration, for the reality of climate change means that in geological and evolutionary terms we're really not long for this world. Sadly, we've already taken too many species with us and we'll clearly take more, but eventually the Anthropocene Era will end and the planet will go on without us. New species will rise, and maybe we'll even evolve - in greatly reduced numbers - into something that can compete but not dominate. It will no longer be Our World, as we so egotistically think of this world, but there will still be *a* world, and possibly a better one.
8
My thought exactly. If any species should be allowed to die out, it's the one who thinks this is even a question to ask.
3
If maintaining the given species would yield important scientific data or medical ingredients, then we have an academic and economic responsibility to save them. If our very presence and destructive activities endanger them, then we have a moral responsibility to the same no matter the former.
If neither, then we should preserve knowledge and pictures of them and let the ecosystem be.
(We also have a responsibility to stop calling corporate markets and software or service suites "ecosystems" because powerful individual people, not natural processes or luck, can and do control them.)
3
An excellent article, the conversational style is well done, full of real information, not just a way to pile up column inches.
A comment on the topic: Given that we are an energy hungry species that can't digest grass and weeds and likes to live in heated houses and fly and drive around a lot, the real question should be 'How many humans are right for the planet?', not 'How many humans can we pack onto the planet?' A worldwide total fertility rate of 1.9 or so will slowly reduce the human population, and Mother Nature probably won't have to call in the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
21
With every species that disappears into extinction from apparent human influence, we lessen our own place in the natural world. Some species of course find their demise in natural selection, not being one of those benefiting from evolution and selection, genetically refused. However, the interconnected relationship of species in ecosystems makes the detective work often difficult with repercussions felt no matter the apparent cause. The best solution is for humankind to use its supposed higher level of intelligence in beneficial ways, realizing our own precarious existence among creatures and our dependence on a natural balance.
15
As we continue to convert most of the planets resources to produce ever more humans, this is only going to get worse. We can pretend that we'll save their DNA or a few individuals for some future date, but in reality the loss of habitat means there will soon be no where for most of these animals to live and what habitat there is will have been so altered by GW that it won't be suitable anyway. By adopting the "philosophy" that the highest use of any resource is to increase the human population we have doomed most, if not all of the species we share the planet with, to extinction. The incredible irony is that not only are our lives immeasurably diminished by these actions (who really wants to live on a planet that looks like Delhi or Beijing) but in the end we will be subjected to the same forces and probably follow these creatures down the same path. And of coarse, it was all unnecessary.
22
Saving habitat is the most important issue, and getting rid of invasive species is a close runner up. Just look at the work of Island Conservation, they go to island and eradicate rats and other destructive invaders, after which the islands' flora and fauna thrive. They have some amazing come back stories. Good article.
9
A very well told story, especially the human one. A skeleton crew working in conditions ranging from austere to grueling, at never-gonna-get-rich pay, each doing their separate part in a complex, difficult, and possibly hopeless undertaking that they know has innate value nonetheless.
Are they and their work an example of boomeresque naive idealistic extravagance of time and resources that our society only thought it could afford, to be set aside when the cost grows too high and the task becomes too insurmountable?
What if we could step out of greed's shackles, no longer driven by suppressed fears of destitution and abandonment, and instead provide for each other the freedom and capacity to pursue our muses and better angels? If our primary culture-driven motivation could be to improve ourselves rather than enrich ourselves? If we recognized God's hand in creation and image in ourselves and each other? In such a world, I believe there would be no shortage of stewards willing and grateful to do the hard and humbling work of studying and preserving that creation.
14
Save entire ecosystems and a secondary benefit is the salvation of the species within them.
Store the DNA of every threatened species for a hopefully brighter future some day.
Tap private donors for contributions to dramatically augment what govt funding exists.
I know this is all painfully obvious and inadequate. It’s all I got
The tidal wave of extinctions soon to come as we alter landscapes and climate will impoverish the earth.
Does it matter, the author asks? I think we should follow our human hearts and continue down the road we’re on. I don’t know the answer...
Great article. Balanced and conveyed the challenges we face in the field, govt, and
it won’t be nuclear war that does us in but death by a thousand cuts. Not today but soon. We are living on borrowed time.
10
Interesting article but I'd like to know how much is spent on saving endangered species. I have a feeling that it's a drop in the bucket compared to the trough laid out for corporate welfare.
In 2017 Americans spent $7.7 BILLION on the purchase of breakfast cereals. I think as a country we could at least cough up that same amount to preserve our natural heritage and unique indigenous species.
79
This reminds me of the scene in ‘Jurassic Park’ where one character poses the dilemma succinctly , ‘Just because we can doesn’t mean we should’. Whereas the extinction of species is fairly easy to quantify & catalogue, the creation of new ones is not. The assumption that all life forms there are is all there will ever be is, through the fossil record, demonstrably incorrect.
4
'Jurassic Park' was filmed on Kauai. It used to look like Hawaii. Extinction is the end and the beginning of evolution by natural selection.
1
This may come as a shock to many of you but the way to preserve species is to give them value. Hunters as the original conservationists have proven this fact for 118 years. After commercial hunting nearly wiped out all of America's game species by 1900, hunters created the modern wildlife management programs still in place today. And not only have those species returned in greater numbers than ever before, but exotic imports, brought to the US specifically for hunting, such as Oryx and Kudu, to name two, have thrived here, and in some cases outnumber their native homeland populations.
"Food" for thought.
3
Importation of game animals for sustained yield hunting, such as boar, mouflon, game bird species, for the enjoyment by the European leisure class, have destroyed Hawaiian forests. Likewise, failed biocontrols like importation of mongoose have wreaked havoc on native avifauna. Not to mention the failed commercial forestry projects that decimate native ecosystems. At a time when Hawaiians had little need for clothing, newly arrived European merchants found little market for their cotton ginghams and such. They solved that dilemma by importing two casks of gravid mosquitoes from Mexico and dumping that in the streams above Lahaina. Mosquitoes are now found everywhere in Hawaii. Malaria-carrying birds were imported from the world over and released here, because the native birds were too quiet. I marvel at the tenacity of the Euro-centric frame of mind which believes it has a solution for anything and everything.
8
Somewhat true, but if you're not a charismatic target species, you don't rate those hunters $. Only by saving entire ecosystems can we hope to preserve the web that supports life and there are fewer of them all the time.
Source for these claims? Which species are you referring to? I wouldn't say that any are thriving here.
One of the best steps we can take to save earth and its fragile ecosystems is to vote out Republicans, at every level, who are for: less regulation of waste dumping, no support for recycling and no incentive for closed loop systems, actively suppressing clean energy, working to cut old growth forest, needles "development" and shrinking of natural habitat in the name of free market enterprise, selling conserved land for oil and gas drilling, offshore drilling, deregulating safety rules on oil spills, the list goes on.
108
Too bad you live in a black and white world, that in reality is shades of gray. Please try to understand nuances, and don't make every issue political. It's this kind of tribalism that is killing the planet.
2
I vote that we start at the premise that no other Scott-Pruitt species be allowed to propagate in a position of power.
4
But the VERY best step we can take is for humans to stop over-reproducing. What happened to the concept of ZPG (Zero Population Growth)? So many people today have decided that three is the ideal number of children for their family. IT'S NOT! Stop over-reproducing, people!!!
2
If habitat is preserved and invasive species managed then it may not be as stark of a choice as saving some and letting others go extinct.
You save enough species and you end up preserving many, many more by default.
Humanity is risking its future by destroying our ecosystem. We do not really understand what we are losing and have no way of predicting the long term ramifications of the extinction of any given species nor what potential value that species may have had for our own in the future.
Let's try to save them all. It creates jobs too.
38
Mother Nature is the expert in maintaining a sound ecosystem. As it encroaches our lifestyle we fight back. In the end though, we'll lose. But the question is, which person will be the last one to glimpse the cold sun?
Saving a tiny bird is really just practice towards this, isn't it? Last one to leave gets to flip the switch off.
10
This comment about "saving a tiny bird" made me think of something that had nothing to do with rescuing dying species, but still....
I once got to know a man through work who had AIDS at a time when most of those who did, were dying. Apropos of nothing other than what he had learned when facing his mortality, he told me of saving the life of a tiny bird. It was hardly endangered, just a common chick. He had a tree outside his kitchen window, and he used to watch a nest and a chick in it. The parent (or parents, I don't remember) were always fluttering off for food to feed him. One day, this man looked out his window and both nest and chick were gone. He went out to look around. The tiny chick and nest lay on the ground. He picked it up and felt some rush of emotion, lifted it up to perch on an intersection of branches and went back inside as to not scare off the parents. A day later, they were back, as normal.
This man did not rescue a species. He did not hunt for a few endangered eggs. He just did something very small for a helpless creature and felt his own humanity. He felt something big about the value of life. I wish we could all learn this lesson. I wish we could all hear his story the way I did and never forget, like I have not.
67
In reality, the bird was most likely left to die after the human tainted th with its scent. Otherwise, the chicks parents would have been hovering about noisily, screeching and threatening the human.
@ Curt that may be true for some animals- but see this article at Scientific American whichindicates it is wrong:
"The myth derives from the belief that birds can detect human scent. Actually, birds have relatively small and simple olfactory nerves, which limit their sense of smell. There are very few birds with extraordinary olfaction and these represent specialized adaptations. For example, turkey vultures are attracted to methyl mercaptan, a gas produced by decaying organic matter (and added to natural gas to make it smell bad), while starlings can detect insecticidal compounds in vegetation, which they utilize to keep their nests bug-free. Yet no bird's sense of smell is cued to human scent."
# https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-birds-abandon...
And @ Peggy Rogers' story reflects how many of us react, j not just privileged Westerners but all around the world: as if we do have a connection to the critters of the world, and can imagine that they, too, struggle. It enriches us.
To be honest I think the question is not whether "some" species should be "allowed" to die out but whether most species will or will not die out. Man made extinction has reached an alarming level. If you don't believe it, watch the movie "Racing Extinction".
5
This is the reason why I love to read such NYTimes comments. Because people who care about the subject at hand have all kinds of great, new ideas and sources of information.
In this case, however, it turned out that I'd already set up a recording to watch this film quite some time ago, and had since forgotten about it. And the news is great!
As my recording setting shows, "Racing Extinction" is on the Discovery Channel on March 25, 2018. I hope so many people watch this and wildlife shows like it that those who can do more about it, will.
1
better still watch PERFECT SENSE (2011). The last person FORGOT to turn out the light.
1
If only we could tell which species are naturally dying out and those we've condemned to death. Some, of course, we can, but we can't be certain in many cases. As long as humans still thrive, I believe we have to use our best intelligence and wisdom to determine which are compatible with the modern world, which are realistically salvageable and which are clearly and hopelessly losing the battle. The final category is this: which species of flora and fauna are critical to the flourishing of this planet? That's the nub of the matter. I'd personally weep for a world without elephants, great apes, whales, dolphins and tropical wildlife. But if it were easy, we'd already have done it.
5
That is impossible to tell. Those "compatible" may be compatible only while those "incompatible" species survive. Life weaves together in unexpected ways. The hubris of humans. Sad.
5
Peggy......the species you'd weep for depend on a whole slew of species you wouldn't weep for, plants, animals and insects you and I don't even know the names of. That's how ecosystems work. Everything is connected.
2
The fact that this is even a question shows that the end of the human race is close at hand, because it proves that as a species we do not posses the skills required to maintain our own planet.
So, enjoy the next few decades as best you can. Because they are all we have left. Perhaps when were gone the remaining species will have a fighting chance at survival.
62
I don't agree with such fatalism. What gives us the right to "enjoy" what we do not have the will, gratitude and courage to defend? Shrugging and saying remaining species may have a fighting chance is shirking responsibility, in my opinion. Each of us alone are the measure of our own character.
2
Humans are an unsuccessful parasite on planet Earth. We're killing our own host.
I found this article heartwarming yet equally heart wrenching. Frankly, I don't know how we will be able to save any endangered animals, much less deciding which ones to put on or take off life support when we can't get a handle on the environment, and a huge percentage of the population still refuses to believe there is problem, much less that global warming exists.
Most people don't even plant trees on Arbor Day any longer, much less know what Arbor Day is or when it is.
20
Two things could be done, first, maintain species and habitat so they don't become threatened in the first place (wishful thinking, I suppose). A second is to do away with the distinct population segment clause in the ESA. This is the largest cause of discrepancy between US ESA list and IUCN redlist. Protect species or bust. If the species is not threatened, regardless of designation of subspecies or DPS's, both of which are highly subjective, then move to the next one on the list until you do get to a species that needs protection.
It was always false science that DDT was weakening the eggs of Condors. The uneducated will believe it to their dying day, because it fits their narrative. The scientists misinterpreted data from a newly computerized technology , gas chromatography, and drew erroneous conclusions.
Millions of human died, and there was no positive impact on the environment. More toxic and expensive pesticides replaced DDT. Environmentalists were delighted with the third world deaths, believing that population growth was a threat to the world. Little did they understand that if poor third world residents would have fewer children if there was a higher probability of their children surviving. Population growth declines with lower childhood deaths and the increase in wealth that would have accompanied the use of DDT.
Too bad wealthy first world environmentalists allow their partisan objectives to defeat science.
1
You throw out your claim that scientists misinterpreted the data to conclude that widespread use of DDT was causing the decline of the raptor population. Yet, when DDT's use was banned, raptor populations rebounded. You make the claim, but cite no peer-reviewed studies to back up your statements.
1
So what was the problem with the condor eggs? Because the California Condor was definitely on its way out.
1
This is the first time I've heard of the idea that DDT weakening condor eggs was a myth. I tried to look online and everything says that it is in fact true. Could you please point me to a source which supports your claim? Thanks!
Interesting to read the comments on this: Seems like there is an undercurrent of a them. Everything is worth saving except the humans? We are all so bad.
Consider this, in 1800 the earths population was estimated at 1 billion; today it is approx 7.6 billion. Something is going to be impacted-- ecosystems, climate, Seas, plant life, animals etc. Hard to dispute that. The real question- is there any reasonable solution to theses changes. None seem likely...so nature will take it's course.
2
Not sure I know the "undercurrent" to which you speak but, yes, we have too many people. What can we do about that? I'd like to give nature a break.
I have one species in mind that, because of nostalgia, I would prefer not die out. But I certainly think it should be thinned out. And with that the other species would more than likely be fine.
30
This article asks, "Should Some Species Be Allowed to Die Out?"
Well, that's one way to ask it. Another might be less disingenuous:
"Should the Human Species Continue to Drive Animal Species to Extinction By Appropriating or Modifying All Resources and Habitat To Suit Itself?"
189
Exactly my reaction. It's like me standing on someone's neck and asking myself if I should allow him to suffocate.
2
Although the article is about the difficulty of saving species, perhaps we need to rethink this and save ecosystems. Having lived on Kauai in the late 60's and seeing the changes to the island it's no wonder the ecosystem is no longer supporting native species. Invasive insects and invasive rats and even chickens and cats will wipe out that was there. Not to mention the development of the island, with the attendant invasive humans. Gone are the fields of sugar cane (not that I am or was attached to that) but replacing that with housing developments, and all the above spells the destruction of the ecosystem.
Perhaps we need to save ecosystems, not individual species.
13
I believe that this is true and obvious, yet the conservation community is totally enamoured with species at risk legislation and will hear nothing about transisting to saving endangered ecosystems. Endangered species tell us where endangered ecosystems are. In British Columbia we have over 1,500 species at risk. It took well over 5 years to develop a recovery plan for one species at risk, the mountain caribou. And then the plan was, for most herds, useless. Are we going to go through that 1,500 times? I don't think so. The demise of the mountain caribou means that many other old-growth forest species are at risk. Yet the effort to save the mountain caribou has displaced concern for every other species within the habitat. A minimal amount of protection from habitat destruction provided in the plan was made contingent on the survival of the caribou. So when the caribou disappear, which is what is happening, the protected areas disappear; the other 40+ species at risk in their habitat will have no protection and the taxpayers of BC who paid for decades of caribou recovery will have nothing to show for it — no protected forest, no caribou, but a steady loss of other biodiversity on the unprotected land.
2
My experience is that the conservation community is all about ecosystems. How did this happen? The dark influence of corporations? I'm serious when I ask that?
1
I am in agreement with you that we should save ecosystems but I would like to expand a little bit on it. Saving ecosystems is a direct outcome of the saving individual species and the Endangered Species Act. When we protect a species, we also protect its habitat which includes all of the other species of flora and fauna that live there. In other words, a portion of the ecosystem. Also in order to save an ecosystem, we need to save the species that maintain and function in that ecosystem so saving individual species is still critical.
4
The fouling of our oceans and drinking water will not only cause certain animals to die off, but humans as well. We are slowly killing our planet and most people react with a simple shrug.
96
Interesting, cept I'd say I like living on Earth and I think my children and their eventual children might have that same opinion.
1
It would seem appropriate for the EPA to enforce the law in NYC and prevent them from dumping raw sewage into the waterways
Ecology is the biological science that explores the complex relationships between living things and their environments.
We have very little, if any, idea whether or not the extinction of any species may endanger humans. A niche is the role an organism plays. We hardly know how many species there are let alone their relationships to each other or to humanity or to the environment.
As they were about to leave Africa the humans who populated the rest of the world were reduced to such a small number that they experienced a genetic bottle neck that led to low diversity in-breeding bordering on incest. There is much more genetic diversity in any African ethnic group or village than in the rest of humanity combined. Low diversity is a mechanism that natural selection prefers to select for evolutionary fit survival or extinction.
Beware that we may be among the endangered species.
3
Without much effort, I can think of one...let's start this November!
13
"it’s hard to argue that their loss impoverishes our experience of the world"
Because the merit and worth of continued existence of any life on this planet is to serve a utilitarian purpose for any random human's arrogant sense of authority to determine and enforce this?
By that sense, you should not wonder why school shootings and corruption happen if individuals feel empowered (entitled) to evaluate the continued existence of other lives based on a random individuals' calculations of whether "their loss impoverishes our experience of the world".
That's called a sociopath. It's a disease.
22
human extinction would be beneficial to this planet as well as outer space where there has been human interference as well.
humans = truly an evolutionary mistake.
39
Or perhaps our purging of biodiversity is just another chapter of life on earth and it's evolution. Even if we covered the planet with nukes, life goes on. Just without us.
Evolution AKA Nature makes no mistakes. Only experiments that succeed or fail. Nature AKA God will decide which species survive. Imagine you're looking down from Heaven. What do U see? The future is predestined by the Laws of Nature AKA Science. Understanding Science makes it easy to predict where the planet will be in a million years. Science will happen whether U believe in God or not.
Species have come and gone over the millennia - probably efforts to stop this process will fail in the long run. If a species isn't strong enough to survive in the world as it is now, they are ultimately doomed.
4
June: A specious argument. Like climate change, which has "come and gone over the millenia", the extinction and endangerment of species has reached an unprecedented velocity, mostly due to human activity and neglect. For those who are indifferent to the glories of nature (the magnificent edifice of the Creator), remember that these species are collectively the "canary in the coal mine", whose silent extinction the dismantling of the system as a whole, and ultimately threatens human existence. Enjoy your silent spring, June.
1
Will you be so sanguine when we have fouled the planet do badly that we are next on the list?
it is always amusing to read the comments from the homo apologetus contingent. Even you have a right to live!
But seriously, it is widely accepted that since life began, more species have died out than thrived. It is human hubris to select species for preservation. Life is never free but exists at a cost to others. *Life is fueled by death*. To preserve a species, life must be sacrificed. Who are we to choose?
4
right, @'student' and the carbon release of humanity into the atmosphere is just a natural normal occurrence. If we are causing the death of species, by our actions, doesn't that create a different moral equation? Not to speak of the scientific equation of ecology - lose a species and you have lost an entire biome - at the best, lets TRY not to lose BEES, butterflies, songbirds, and beetles. They are ALL threatened, 'student'...so live up to your name, and learn.
16
Student,
Because we are the reason, most often, for that species destruction.
Seems kinda selfish and self aggrandizing to just shrug and wipe out a species because of hubris.
Our way of life is going to be, and is, in a world of hurt without bees, fish, birds etc.
We are all interconnected.
sigh.
many organisms drastically alter their environments though humans do seem to be capable of, shall we say, the greatest impact. and no, i don't believe that merely causing death by our actions creates a different moral equation. that is, after all, a fundamental fact of life itself. i maintain that life is fueled by death. at the most basic level, you occupy space that another cannot. you eat. you defend. you kill. this is biology. now, i do believe that part of being human is the potential for transcending biology. to care beyond what is just good for me. this might lead me to decrease my impact, my cost, but i feel neither a right to choose nor an obligation to preserve everything. i know and accept that my life has already cost the world many, many others and yet i strive to live. be aware that by having lived long enough to acquire the ability to write your comment, you too have been responsible for many deaths, and yet you go on.
All man killing species such as lions and tigers and mountain lions and wolf packs. And killers of our pets like coyotes, eagles. should be eliminated. The growth of deer and edible prey can help decrease world hunger. .Children, adults, pets will no
longer be victims of horrible ends of life. Aren’t we tired of hearing when someone gets eaten alive by a tiger , of those who say don’t blame the tiger it was just being a tiger? Mountain lions going for a day care center and thise saying protect it?
1
Then lets eliminate the largest most ferocious killer. Humans. Greatest killer of pets in shelters each year.
We don't know what life would have been like, the possible benefits to human kind if species hadn't gone extinct. Let's not keep making the same mistakes. Go watch Stat Trek 4.
Is this serious or a joke?
Recommend that you research keystone species.
1
Yes of course! The tuberculosis bacteria, AIDS virus and malaria carrying mosquitoes come to mind. There are many others
2
I must say that I find it rather humorous the number of posters who say or imply that it would be a good thing for Homo sapiens to die out. I wonder if any of them would volunteer to speed the process along?
4
already did, buddy - no kids, no cars, no meat. it is a simple equation. Such a stupid republican talking point, you are parroting.. How about yourself, what is your carbon output?
44
In defense of Rob-C. I am not a Republican, and I give to environmental causes. I am deeply concerned about the environment. I do not, however, want people to die out. In my view, it is a sophomoric response to environmental angst.
Fight for a sustainable future, which of course, includes the most advanced species we know of.
3
Stop having sooo many kids.
We can turn the over population around quickly.
Problem solved.
Either we do it or nature will correct itself. (And not in a good way for us!)
8
We human are the ones who should not be saved. We humans should spare nothing to preserve, and not torture, and destroy, and pollute, and over populate, and kill.
7
Where is Noah when we need him? He did not allow any species to die during the Great Flood. All species must survive.
10
Not all species can be revived today, and I happen to believe there are some we can no longer attempt to.
Unless China is able to do two things, one of the endangered species most often cited as worth saving -- the panda bear -- can not be. China first would have to undo its vast amount of industrialization in valleys between certain mountain ranges. In order to mate, panda traditionally crisscrossed these valleys and ranges in order to find others with which to mate. Of course, no modern nation has ever reversed anything near this kind of massive growth.
Second, the panda they have now been successful in mating and raising in captivity would have to be taught how to successfully reenter the wild. Those they have attempted to reintroduce have mostly died.
Panda have a notoriously difficult time in mating. It would work naturally only in great numbers. The Chinese have succeeded in spurring procreation only by artificial means. There is no chance at turning back the clock in time, nor is there in naturally recreating what time has lost.
It is a heartbreaking fact of modern life, no matter how darling and unique these creatures. The nation of their birth has turned its panda farms into successful tourist destinations. Only that country can decide if all its effort is worth the cost.
But in terms of directing so much international conservation resources into reviving any one species, we must become wiser and more educated about the particular value and need.
1
Noah’s Ark indeed! We are so blessed in the US with many such arks - our myriad of parks, preserves, sanctuaries, and refuges. Support them, add to them, visit them! And, yes we ought to continue to invest the relatively paltry sums necessary to preserve and restore any species or ecosystem in need of such management. There are so many world problems that we cannot control and that no amount of money will fix. Yet, species can be saved and ecosystems can be restored and striving to do both is the good and right thing to do.
Didn't some guy rebuild the Ark in your neck of the woods? He can round them all up:)
All things considered, I refer the author and others to this recent NY Times opinion piece by E.O.Wilson (whose work the author mentions only in passing, alas..):
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/opinion/sunday/species-conservation-e...
5
Anyone between the age of 18 and 35 who opts for sterilization should be handed a bag containing 1 year's pay at minimum wage. Unmarked, non-sequential Bills.
Problem solved.
10
Yeah, let's pay the poor, undesirables to stop having kids! Maybe they can nanny for the elite for whom a year at min wage is less than chump change. Yeah.
Your program is cost effective only if you apply the policy to women only. which is why sterilization is covered free of charge only for women under Obamacare. There would be no point in providing free sterilization of men, because the birth rate would not decline.
Mother Nature will sort it all out. She is all about balance. We may well be the itch she scratches next.
6
Let's stop trying to save humans, the most destructive locust on the planet.
33
Nature determines what dies out and what will survive. To the extent that we influence this decision, we influence it destructively. We should never try to destruct species, even though we have and still are doing so.
2
Human beings are on a path to extinction through over population. Any species will become destructive and then 'crash' if their population grows beyond their environment. Of course humans will take a great deal of the world's species and environments down with them, whenever the end times come for our species. If you can 'stand far enough away' you will see this explosion for what it is. The result is inevitable. Currently some humans are 'curating' the so-called natural world: counting, tagging, hatching eggs, introducing wolves back into Yellowstone. etc. There is no real wilderness left...the world is our 'zoo' now. And meanwhile, humans are stockpiling WMDs, and gorging on energy, spewing out pollution and generally acting like the animals we are.....taking, taking, taking until the collapse occurs. Without a major change in human behavior, there will be nothing left to preserve.
37
Chris Thomas' perspective in the article that we humans 'are not good at planning ahead.' We are certainly seeing that with respect to human population growth. Even our visionaries, such as Musk or Hawking, seem not to understand the challenges reflected in that growth, which is far and away the primary root cause of species extinctions. This was a wonderful article; I would only suggest that more emphasis be made of the fact that we humans are not just increasing the rate of extinction, we are causing a mass extinction. In that context, the issue of allowing species to die out diminishes in signficance because we are going to lose a number of species whether we try to stop it or not. A number so large that it classifies as one of a handful of mass extinctions in the history of the planet. The only mass extinction to be caused by a single species on the only planet known to have life.
9
I was thinking negatively, until I saw those beautiful Baby Akikiki reaching up for their food. Thanks for this eye-opening and heart-warming report.
As E. O. Wilson said, “We have no idea how most of [the ecosystems on the planet] work, we have little idea what species are in [these ecosystems], and we don’t know what will happen to the world if we remove such a large part of this ancient flora and fauna. We are tinkering in a way that could be injurious to our own species.”
9
We should concern ourselves less with that is injurious to homo sapiens and more with restoring a natural balance.
1
Only superfluous species that I can think of is our species. We destroy. We kill rapaciously. We serve no earthly good. Humans could go extinct and the world would flourish.
219
So you're taking the position that we should hate ourselves and die off and that's the only solution? I can't see enough of your fellow human beings jumping on that bandwagon to make a difference to the health of the biosphere.
Environmental education and cultivating new philosophies governing our relations to other species and to our planetary home would probably be more helpful. Love is always a better answer than hatefulness. Love requires self-discipline and self-sacrifice (not self-annihilation) directed toward caring for other life.
3
I think of this all the time. Elegantly written and concise condemnation of all the damage we've wrought and continue too wreak. If there were an election, I know who I would vote for.
2
Other humans, right?
Not you and the people you care about.
5
"Should Some Species Be Allowed to Die Out?"
Ummm --
And who is charged with the responsibility (self-awarded power) - of doing the "allowing" ??
Hmmm...
14
Should some species be left to die out? Yes. Humans.
83
The deadliest mass extinction of all time the Permian Triassic 250 million years ago had nothing to do with humans. But it had great benefit for dinosaurs. Humans had nothing to do with the demise of the dinosaurs except birds 65 million years ago. Humans have existed for 300,000 years. And I do not want humans to die out.
3
The answer is YES.
2
The answer is NO! Every species loss is a loss of invaluable and irreplaceble biologies that we have no idea where they may lead us in the future. We need to start to behave morally, as opposed to capitalistically, and let the earth live for all species, not just humans. It can't work anyway - with species loss the balance is upset, as we continuously re-discover..
32
"The biologist E.O. Wilson eloquently argued against living in a world of crows and rats, and against the loss of beautiful, fragile species like snow leopards, white rhinos and tiny mouse lemurs; even if you never see a lemur or an arctic fox in person, the world can be a richer place by having such creatures in it."
And we owe it to the grandkids to leave a world containing flora and fauna diversity and beauty; it's their heritage. A world of roaches and weeds would basically be Hell. I appreciate all those hard-working, underpaid conservationists devoted to this great challenge.
Congress and 'leadership' needs to reorder their priorities: The environment (which houses us all) instead of oil subsidies. And nukes have been on life support since their inception ~ its only legacy is perpetual toxic nuclear waste. Thank you for this article. Conservation is important.
71
In response to JessiePearl, yes, IF we need to "let go" of some species, it makes sense to do so with some ranking system. However, it's not so easy to establish such a filter since it can be difficult to correctly assess the importance an organism to its environment.
And rats make absolutely wonderful pets, sorry E.O.
Who determines which plants are weeds?
6
One person's weed is another animal's feed, once the balance is so far off, a catastrophic event is likely required to re-set that balance. The effect may be a ripple, it may be an avalanche, determined by the interdependence of species and environmental changes.
Re: "...As the list of endangered animals worldwide grows longer, society may soon be faced with an impossible decision: which ones to take off life support..."
While a certain number of species go periodically, extinct...we selfish humans are living in a time called the 'Anthropocene' because of our profoundly dangerous mismanagement of thew one, 'and only supportive_environment that humans have encountered, thus far!!
As a species...H.Sapiens. Allegedly.Sapient...should be profoundly, grateful all the other species, (apparently), can't get together to decide if WE deserve extinction_prevention!
5
All species have an equal value. The problem is that certain hominid sub-species, such as Homo politicus nonsapiens and Homo theoticus asapiens, refuse to recognise natural limits. Without the insatiable expansion that is all they know there would be fewer species under threat, including Homo sapiens sapiens.
The only way to protect the global ecosystem is to allow natural processes such as disease and starvation to control the hominid over population. Start with an end to research for vaccines for malaria and HIV. When the global hominid population returns to under six billion, recovery becomes possible.
7
Thanks for the thought-provoking piece. It's probably more fruitful to focus on the opportunity cost line of reasoning for conserving the current diversity. For example, how much does it cost to control the invasive species so that the endangered species can thrive normally? That's the $ value of that endangered species.
It's one factor, but not at all the $ value. A species may have interactions with other species- that are important to humans (and other species) but which we know nothing about. Example: on the island of Mauritius, there is a big slow growing hardwood tree that has not reproduced well - since the sailors ate all the dodos. We don't, in fact, know for certain that the dodos were critical for the tree- partly because there were several other animals that went extinct there at the same time, including a giant tortoise, also a seed eater. "Value", even in just dollars - is always complex.
5
Without study on causes and what's effective and what's not in terms of gun violence the Congress is left only with the NRA's "fact" that what is needed is more guns in the hands of more people. Or "good guys" in NRA parlance. Until they shoot someone and they are disavowed as mentally unfit.
That is the point of the ban, to deprive Congress of information other than that supplied by NRA.
A private organization lobbied for and got the Government to put a restraining order on itself.
2
Weird. This was a comment on the CDC studying the health affects of gun violence (can it be good?). Not sure how it ended up here. Sorry.
2
I hope all high school biology teachers and college professors use this essay.
15
Billionaires - are NOT an endangered species. Far from moving towards extinction, they are currently one of the most invasive and damaging of all creatures on earth.
They claim to be "injured" if they are not allowed to cut that last chunk of old forest? That injury comes down to - the next super yacht they have built will have to be 2 feet shorter than if they are allowed to exterminate the last refuge of countless creatures - many still unknown to science.
If we ever hope to have the aliens start talking to us- the choice is clear. Feed the last survivors of ancient species to ravening destructive predators - or- show some understanding of the value of life? Hm. Hard choice, morally. I'll guarantee the aliens; if they are watching, will not want to encourage mindless destruction.
32
An excellent, thoughtful article.
12
I would like to see the extinction of smallpox, polio, mumps, measles and other viruses that kill humans.
8
I would like to see those any many more human killing diseases flourish. It is the only hope for the planet.
1
Typical human emotion and incredibly selfish, particularly when all moderate humans vaccinate.
1
Talk about unsung heroes. Here are people worthy of admiration.
37
Each species is also a habitat for microbes, many of which are specific to the threatened/endangered species. So when we lose a species, we also lose its microflora. We do not know what chemicals, enzymes, proteins, antibiotics and what potential benefits from these produces we are losing.
26
This article doesn't highlight a few things that are very important one being that comparatively conservation receives very little funding. Saving 'akikiki and nearly all other species in Hawai'i wouldn't take a massive budget, one fortune 500 CEO could probably do it with less than a years salary. The reason it hasn't happened is because our government continues to restrict funds to conservation. For example more people are visiting national parks now than ever in the history of the service but they are being run with large budget cuts, not enough staff, and a huge back log of needed infrastructure repairs. You'd think that given the amount of interest we would invest more resources as a nation but we don't. Instead we provide tax cuts and subsidies to large corporations and bail out, "to big to fail" companies.
In addition to the funding scenario when talking about the conservation of birds in Hawai'i it is important to realize that they have a deep cultural value. Most of the birds of Hawai'i have been integrated into beliefs, stories, and oral histories of native Hawaiians and losing these species has caused this human history and culture to be lost.
Just giving up on these species because they are insignificanr is a judgment that humans have made. Why are we the species that decides which other species lives and dies? If I back my car into someone else's car I have to pay the damages, similarly if this generation takes a species from the next damages ought to be paid.
109
The key is to preserve habitat rather than individual species. Preserving habitat allows many species to thrive, and supports the web of animals, plants, etc. that in combination make up the environment.
190
This is key - the idea of building a "reservoir population" on the mainland doesn't really fit the concept. I wonder if that's really the right direction.
1
That means curbing "development". And yes we absolutely must do it.
But the "developers" will lose their profits, leaders who work for them will say.
Good.
3
But there are too many habitats and specie known and unknown to preserve,
1
The most dangerous animal infestation on planet earth is the species Homo Sapiens . Although I love individual homo sapiens and some are lovely , cute and friendly the species is violent and destructive to ALL life on earth. .
All the other species on planet earth will survive just fine with the extinction of Homo Sapiens.
Unfortunately only after the earths environment is beyond recovery will all Homo sapiens die out but I suppose in geological time new flora and fauna will return . One can hope!
119
Every living thing has been trying to infest Earth with it's own kind for billions of years. Bacteria used sunlight CO2 and H2O to make the oxygen we humans breathe. Many living things need us to infect and infest or to cultivate and domesticate them.
3
"All the other species on planet earth will survive just fine with the extinction of Homo Sapiens.”
While I agree with your sentiment, the above statement isn’t true. Specied come and go quite naturally via the process of evolution. What is troubling, is how we are accelerating the process to where many species have no time to even try to adapt. What’s also sad is the way we hunt animals for their body parts purely for greed and to feed our out-of-control population.
2