• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why care about extinction?

Khyron said:
my guess was that this "discussion" will drag into at least 40 pages, without ever really going anywhere, as we just argue about logical fallacies with Our Dear Dustin. I'll be back on page 40 if so.

My real input:

Extinctions of individual species don't matter for the most part. They only become important in two cases: certain "essential species" in various ecosystems whose loss puts the entire ecosystem out of business (Giant Sequoia, for example, shape the entire ecosystem they live in) or fragile "canary species" whose demise can be used to show threats to ecosystem health.

The former are rarely the latter, and the latter can only be worth conservation efforts in abstract ways. Assuming that a ecosystem is physically protected from development, effort should be spent on improving ecosystem health as a whole - e.g. ability to support the keystone species even if they aren't endangered - rather than striving to preserve the canaries. Since many ecosystems have multiple "essential" species, this can be challenging enough without having to try to save every single species.
Click to expand...

Damn well said, Khyron. Thanks.

Athon
 
Khyron said:
Extinctions of individual species don't matter for the most part. They only become important in two cases: certain "essential species" in various ecosystems whose loss puts the entire ecosystem out of business (Giant Sequoia, for example, shape the entire ecosystem they live in) or fragile "canary species" whose demise can be used to show threats to ecosystem health.

The former are rarely the latter, and the latter can only be worth conservation efforts in abstract ways. Assuming that a ecosystem is physically protected from development, effort should be spent on improving ecosystem health as a whole - e.g. ability to support the keystone species even if they aren't endangered - rather than striving to preserve the canaries. Since many ecosystems have multiple "essential" species, this can be challenging enough without having to try to save every single species.
Click to expand...



This would be more or less my current understanding as well. I also find it amusing that this is the first mention of the term "keystone species" on this thread:) ... A further indication that Dustin didn't research this topic before starting a thread debating it.
 
What about another kind of species? Not a keystone species or "canary in the mine" type species, but species whose evolutionary niche is "complex". I'm not sure what other word to use, but I'm thinking of species like whales or elephants or polar bears or apes. Animals that have long life spans and have developed social structures and other long term survival strategies. Those kinds of animals take a very long evolutionary period to develop. In a sense, their niche is stacked on top of a lot of other niches.

Preserving this type of critter doesn't seem like a waste to me. It seems very important. They represent hundreds of thousands of years of development. If they're gone, there may very well not be a replacement in the lifetime of our species. There's a sense of scale here we should all find sobering. Think of all of the recorded history of human civilization. That represents just a tiny fraction of the time it took these animals to develop.
 
Well said Khyron - that's the point I was trying to make, albeit somewhat less eloquently :)

delphi_ote said:
What about another kind of species? Not a keystone species or "canary in the mine" type species, but species whose evolutionary niche is "complex". I'm not sure what other word to use, but I'm thinking of species like whales or elephants or polar bears or apes. Animals that have long life spans and have developed social structures and other long term survival strategies. Those kinds of animals take a very long evolutionary period to develop. In a sense, their niche is stacked on top of a lot of other niches.

Preserving this type of critter doesn't seem like a waste to me. It seems very important. They represent hundreds of thousands of years of development. If they're gone, there may very well not be a replacement in the lifetime of our species. There's a sense of scale here we should all find sobering. Think of all of the recorded history of human civilization. That represents just a tiny fraction of the time it took these animals to develop.
Click to expand...

I agree that there are human-based (e.g. research or emotional) reasons for preserving these complex animals (and personally I am all for it) but it is important that we are honest about the reasons we are doing it, and don't try and hide behind misguided notions of ecosystem integrity or some other notion they are "needed".
 
delphi_ote said:
What about another kind of species? Not a keystone species or "canary in the mine" type species, but species whose evolutionary niche is "complex". I'm not sure what other word to use, but I'm thinking of species like whales or elephants or polar bears or apes. Animals that have long life spans and have developed social structures and other long term survival strategies. Those kinds of animals take a very long evolutionary period to develop. In a sense, their niche is stacked on top of a lot of other niches.

Preserving this type of critter doesn't seem like a waste to me. It seems very important. They represent hundreds of thousands of years of development. If they're gone, there may very well not be a replacement in the lifetime of our species. There's a sense of scale here we should all find sobering. Think of all of the recorded history of human civilization. That represents just a tiny fraction of the time it took these animals to develop.
Click to expand...


The argument, though, is whether it is an aesthetic appreciation we have (one which causes us to marvel at the complexity of biodiversity, at the fact such things take so much time to develop) or one which has an appreciable effect on human well being if it is removed.

An elephant indeed has a niche, and is an amazing creature. If it was gone, its niche might be unfilled for some time or be rapidly taken over by another organism; either way, the knock-on effect would be relatively minor, with few other species relying solely on the elephant to exist. Humans relying on that ecosystem for resources would find it easy to adjust to the loss of all elephants.

Does this mean we should wipe out elephants? No. For one thing, I personally happen to like biodiversity, and feel that as a whole it is important. It is not a universal, rational reason why we should keep them, but it does support my view of why I personally wouldn't like it.

Liken it to stalactites growing in a cave; there's no rational reason for or against vandals destroying them - but I'd be well and truly pissed if some little bugger came in and smashed them all to pieces.

Athon
 
Ginarley said:
Well said Khyron - that's the point I was trying to make, albeit somewhat less eloquently :)



I agree that there are human-based (e.g. research or emotional) reasons for preserving these complex animals (and personally I am all for it) but it is important that we are honest about the reasons we are doing it, and don't try and hide behind misguided notions of ecosystem integrity or some other notion they are "needed".
Click to expand...
Bees.
 
athon said:
An elephant indeed has a niche, and is an amazing creature. If it was gone, its niche might be unfilled for some time or be rapidly taken over by another organism; either way, the knock-on effect would be relatively minor, with few other species relying solely on the elephant to exist. Humans relying on that ecosystem for resources would find it easy to adjust to the loss of all elephants.
Click to expand...
While I agree this is probably true, I think we should be very cautious about it. This is a decision that can't be undone, and it might have implications we haven't thought of just yet. For example, an organism that rapidly takes over the elephant's niche might itself be dangerous to humans. Or there may be something we have yet to learn from elephants that would be lost if we wiped them out.

Personally, if I weigh that against the relatively small cost of the collective effort necessary to preserve its habitat, I'd just as soon proceed with caution.
athon said:
Liken it to stalactites growing in a cave; there's no rational reason for or against vandals destroying them - but I'd be well and truly pissed if some little bugger came in and smashed them all to pieces.
Click to expand...
Very well put. I think there's a little more to my objection than that, but I definitely share your sentiment.
 
delphi_ote said:
While I agree this is probably true, I think we should be very cautious about it. This is a decision that can't be undone, and it might have implications we haven't thought of just yet. For example, an organism that rapidly takes over the elephant's niche might itself be dangerous to humans. Or there may be something we have yet to learn from elephants that would be lost if we wiped them out.
Click to expand...

True. There is obviously the chance benefit in having a range of organisms for all manner of discoveries, but again I wouldn't equate that necessarily with being of any great salvation to surrounding human populations. As for the possibility that the removal of some species might create a serious knock-on which results in plagues, pox or pestilence of sorts, I can't say that this is impossible. Yet arguing for adverse unknowns in the face of risk doesn't make for a rational argument, and this is what Dustin was trying to articulate.

Such a risk is not limited to just an extinction event of a single species. Indeed anything we humans do opens ourselves to possibly adverse effects. We make decisions not on the absence of evidence that indicates a speculated or imagined risk, but the information we do have which indicates an actual potential risk.

True, we can't undo it once it has been done, but this is the same argument against genetic engineering. The answer there is not to avoid it, but to be well informed inorder to describe those actual potential risks rather than avoid the whole issue due to speculated risks. The only difference is that there is a benefit to genetic engineering, while the destruction of a species has no benefit at all.

As Ginarly said, this is not about an argument which says we should push for extinction. It is about being honest about our reasons rather than abusing reason and science to support our emotional desires for biodiversity.

Athon
 
Ginarley said:
Agree entirely, imo individual species really don't matter that much in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

I disagree. "Biomass" is the raw amount of life. It's not the amount of diversity. What advantages does "Biomass" have over biodiversity for us humans here and now? How does "Biomass" fit any of the criteria to prevent extinction I listed in the 1st post?
 
athon said:
Ok, let's unravel the definition of subjective. In its most pure form, it simply means 'of the mind', however most definitions of the term imply the role bias, emotional reasoning and personal preference has. The quickest of searches provides a site which has numerous definitions covering these; http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=...bjective&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Click to expand...

What definition are YOU using then? You can only pick one.


athon said:
While rational thought can only occur within the mind (where else is it going to occur?) it in itself is a subjective process. Is it rational? Rational implies reason and logic, which in themselves are significant due to the fact that it is consistent in time. What is logical now is logical later. That is why we use reason - if I make a decision on an event in the future, I have the best chance of having the outcome of my decision be as predicted.
Click to expand...

This is all true.(though I don't quite understand the last bit) Yet it doesn't jive with your claim that "Subjective can't be rational".

athon said:
Subjective outcomes are open to inconsistancy as a result of the emotional and personal biases. Emotions change depending on the situation, hence if not taken into account (or treated as objective outcomes), decisions will not have predictable outcomes.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're saying here.

Subjective outcomes are open to inconsistency? What are "Subjective outcomes" exactly?

Emotions change depending on the situation, hence if not taken into account (or treated as objective outcomes), decisions will not have predictable outcomes. What does "Treated as objective outcomes" mean exactly?


athon said:
So, your question is poorly phrased and leading. Subjective thoughts are not what I'm talking about, but rather subjective outcomes. Aesthetics is a subjective outcome - it is a personal view. The fact that we should keep pandas because of aesthetic reasons is irrational. The fact that we should keep pandas as people currently like them, and we want to endeavour to make people happy, is rational.
Click to expand...

How is using aesthetics as an argument against extinction a "subjective outcome" exactly?
 
Old man said:
My best guess (formulated part way through page one) is that Dustin is a 15 - 16 year old girl who's just discovered 'love', is taking an Earth Science course taught by a young, hot 'enviromentalist', and now wants to save all of the those cute, fuzzy little animals that the rest of us just don't care enough about.:D
Click to expand...

I'm a man and I'm over 20.

Let me ask you a question. "Old man". Do you want to prevent extinction? Yes or No?
 
Khyron said:
Extinctions of individual species don't matter for the most part. They only become important in two cases: certain "essential species" in various ecosystems whose loss puts the entire ecosystem out of business (Giant Sequoia, for example, shape the entire ecosystem they live in) or fragile "canary species" whose demise can be used to show threats to ecosystem health.
Click to expand...

Your two instances of extinction mattering is actually only one type of instance. Ecosystem sustainability. However I mentioned two other reasons to care about extinction in my 1st post.

1. We currently simply don't know which DNA of which species might be able to be used in the future to cure any number of diseases, cancer for instance. It could be that in the near future we will discover a method of using the DNA from some obscure jelly fish to breast cancer. But unfortunately that Jelly Fish might of went extinct because we didn't think it could of been of any use.

2. The fact that we want future generations to be able to observe their beauty directly, and not just from a text book. How tragic would it be for your offspring to blame your generation for not being able to witness first hand, many species that are currently going extinct? I for one, would of loved to of seen the Dodo bird or the Thylacine, or even the recently extinct Chinese river dolphin.

Khyron said:
The former are rarely the latter, and the latter can only be worth conservation efforts in abstract ways. Assuming that a ecosystem is physically protected from development, effort should be spent on improving ecosystem health as a whole - e.g. ability to support the keystone species even if they aren't endangered - rather than striving to preserve the canaries. Since many ecosystems have multiple "essential" species, this can be challenging enough without having to try to save every single species.
Click to expand...

This is true. However we can't write off any species as "worthless" or as you put it they "don't matter for the most part". This sort of attitude is the reason we're losing so many species.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
Subjective outcomes are open to inconsistency? What are "Subjective outcomes" exactly?
Click to expand...

You know, if somebody is genuinely out to learn something, I don't mind explaining stuff. But when somebody is obviously somewhat slow on the uptake and has great trouble understanding things acts as if they have all the answers already, it's called 'arrogance'. You, Dustin, are an arrogant person.

Since I'm endeavouring not to change your mind as much as continue to debate for anybody following it;

Subjective outcomes are those outcomes you strive to attain which are subjective. I'll give you an example; 'I wish to be beautiful'. Beauty is subjective, being beautiful is a subjective outcome.

What does "Treated as objective outcomes" mean exactly?
Click to expand...

It means the outcome needs no judgement to be declared true or not. It is evident by its existance, and not by my perception of it.

In the case of extinction, if I don't find biodiversity all that aesthetically pleasing, your saving of the panda will by a waste of time and effort. Hence according to me, your claim that it is aesthetically pleasing to have biodiversity is incorrect. Yet neither of us are right or wrong.

How is using aesthetics as an argument against extinction a "subjective outcome" exactly?
Click to expand...

Because it depends on our own, personal views of what is aesthetically pleasing.

Athon
 
athon said:
Subjective outcomes are those outcomes you strive to attain which are subjective. I'll give you an example; 'I wish to be beautiful'. Beauty is subjective, being beautiful is a subjective outcome.
Click to expand...

You claim that "Subjective outcomes are open to inconsistency as a result of the emotional and personal biases."

Going with your example "Striving for beauty is open to inconsistency as a result of the emotional and personal biases."? I don't quite understand this. What sort of inconsistency are we talking about? Inconsistency with what? With what people perceive as beautiful? No, That can't be relevant to your point. Inconsistent with initial goals?


athon said:
It means the outcome needs no judgement to be declared true or not. It is evident by its existance, and not by my perception of it.

In the case of extinction, if I don't find biodiversity all that aesthetically pleasing, your saving of the panda will by a waste of time and effort. Hence according to me, your claim that it is aesthetically pleasing to have biodiversity is incorrect. Yet neither of us are right or wrong.
Click to expand...

The fact that you personally don't find biodiversity aesthetically pleasing isn't relevant to the discussion of whether or not we should actually preserve the species. The reason being, You are one individual person. Does your desire outweigh the desire of millions of others? If I find it aesthetically pleasing to have as much biodiversity as possible, that is a logical motivation for me to preserve it. Even if everyone on the planet hated biodiversity, They still don't have a right to rob it from the next generation to enjoy it.

athon said:
Because it depends on our own, personal views of what is aesthetically pleasing.
Click to expand...

It doesn't depend on just my own personal views. It depends on the views many people. Also, as mentioned before, Does not enjoying something give you the right to take it away from others? To prevent them from preserving it? If there are 30 people living in a community and there is a public park enjoyed by let's say 10 people in the community. Do the 20 people who do not enjoy it have a right to destroy it? Or even prevent the 10 who do enjoy it from preserving it? No. Moreover, the 10 people who do enjoy it do have a logical reason to preserve it. The logical reason is the fact that they enjoy it. How isn't enjoying something a logical reason to preserve it?
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
You claim that "Subjective outcomes are open to inconsistency as a result of the emotional and personal biases."

Going with your example "Striving for beauty is open to inconsistency as a result of the emotional and personal biases."? I don't quite understand this. What sort of inconsistency are we talking about? Inconsistency with what? With what people perceive as beautiful? No, That can't be relevant to your point. Inconsistent with initial goals?
Click to expand...

I've never said this before; to anyone - but Dustin, you are a complete fool. I say that in light of the fact you say you're over the age of 20. If you were an adolescent who was trying to act grown up, I'd probably be a little more lenient. Seriously, I'd call you a troll if you even had the brain cells to be taking piss out of me right now.

Beauty is a personal perception; what I find beautiful, another will not. Therefore it is a subjective outcome. If you don't understand this, I seriously don't think myself or anybody can help you. You're destined to struggle.

The fact that you personally don't find biodiversity aesthetically pleasing isn't relevant to the discussion of whether or not we should actually preserve the species. The reason being, You are one individual person. Does your desire outweigh the desire of millions of others?
Click to expand...

Thank the gods you've finally worked that part out.

That's the point; it becomes a popularity issue. If 99% of the population desire something and want it, then they will work towards achieving it. This does not necessarily make it rational. It makes it an emotional exercise.

If most of the population wants to erect a statue because it looks good and they like looking at it, and it does no harm, then I would use the same argument. Most people don't like looking at graffitti, even though there's no rational reason why graffitti shouldn't be there. It's a matter of popular desire to ban it.

If I find it aesthetically pleasing to have as much biodiversity as possible, that is a logical motivation for me to preserve it.
Click to expand...

No Dustin. It is an emotional motivation. In ten years time you might feel otherwise. Logic is consistent, remember?

It doesn't depend on just my own personal views. It depends on the views many people. Also, as mentioned before, Does not enjoying something give you the right to take it away from others? To prevent them from preserving it? If there are 30 people living in a community and there is a public park enjoyed by let's say 10 people in the community. Do the 20 people who do not enjoy it have a right to destroy it? Or even prevent the 10 who do enjoy it from preserving it? No. Moreover, the 10 people who do enjoy it do have a logical reason to preserve it. The logical reason is the fact that they enjoy it. How isn't enjoying something a logical reason to preserve it?
Click to expand...

Honestly Dustin, I didn't call you a fool to insult you, but rather because you seriously are having great troubles reasoning anything here and then claim to fully understand the argument and to have a stance against it.

Your statement of morality in preserving things for the future is admirable, and I agree that from my view it would be a shame to lose it. But this is not a logical, rational statement, but one of personal emotions on the issue.

Athon
 
Dustin
Is your grand argument now reduced to the point that your last refuge lies in the sentiment that subjective reasoning should have just as much validity as objective rationality?
Really?
On a board dedicated to skepticism??
Still no evidence for any of your other points???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom