[headShrinker]

Agreed. I think most of us can relate to your sentiment. The world perspective might be the animals, trees, and water are connected to us. When these animals die, it's the canary in the coal mine. Our time is coming. You figure when everything is dying around us it's for a reason. One species over there is a singularity, two species is a coincidence, 25% of all living things is indication that something is terribly wrong and it's only going to get worse.

[ProAm]

Sort of, until you realize that 99% of all creatures that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. [1] It's not unnatural for animals to leave the planet and never return, but it's is still sad.

[1] http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org/overview.html

[rcthompson]

But it is unnatural for species to go extinct because humans shot them all.

[JoeAltmaier]

Its more 'natural' if a volcano erupts and kills them all? Or a flood? Or an asteroid? Its not 'normal', I admit that. Extinction by definition can't be a normal event. But natural? I guess if everything man-made is defined as 'unnatural' then sure.

[bduerst]

Really it depends on the context and what humans can control. Could we stop a volcanic eruption? Probably not. A meteor strike? Maybe.

Could we stop the poaching of near extinct species for some unproven alternative medicine? Hopefully.

[dm2]

It's amazing that we can throw nuclear weapons at both of those huge objects (volcano and meteor) and there is actually a chance that we can prevent them from destroying the world.

In other news, terrorists and other enemies of the US are trying to make the Yellowstone volcano explode, that's scary. Can we not "cool" the magma under Yellowstone? Maybe even use that heat? Are geothermal plants too expensive?

[Nadya]

But it's natural of wolves hunt their prey to extinction and as a result, starve themselves into extinction?

Animals killing animals is still "natural" predator:prey survival. Humans killing an entire species by shooting them isn't any less natural than wolves hunting their primary food source to extinction.

The difference is humans don't go extinct when we kill a species - because we aren't dependent on them as a primary source of survival.

Most animals are foragers (eg. squirrels) or hunters (eg. lions) and some can be both (eg. bears) but very, very few animals are creators of their own food.

I cannot think of any other animal that aids another species in breeding for the sole purpose of consumption for survival. Although I can think of a few bacterium examples or even symbiotic relationships. It's not quite the same level I'm arguing for here.

[dec0dedab0de]

I cannot think of any other animal that aids another species in breeding for the sole purpose of consumption for survival.

Not quite the same thing you're talking about, but some ants farm aphids to eat something they produce. I would give a citation, but there are a ton if you search, and I don't know if any one is notably better.

[Nadya]

>Some farming ant species gather and store the aphid eggs in their nests over the winter. In the spring, the ants carry the newly hatched aphids back to the plants.

I'd say that counts. The others don't seem to be on the "same level" as to what I'm thinking - though the distinction is possibly even arbitrary.

Thanks for the info!

[bduerst]

Right, but do the ants practice animal husbandry? Do predatory fish eat the lazy skunk shrimp to ween the herd?

I think the point they were trying to make is that there is no other sapient symbiotic relationships, but there are few sapient species so it's kind of moot.

[Nadya]

Animals are far smarter than humans give them credit for [1]. That isn't to say any species comes close to the broad scope of human intellect - but to say that there are not purposeful interactions of survival among other species would be wrong. That is why I said I did not know of one offhand, rather than say they do not exist. Although I could not name one on a level higher than bacteria, I knew it was likely to exist.

Symbiotic relationships are not quite the same - again with my definition arguably being arbitrary. I consider a symbiotic relationship to be when two animals happen to benefit from each other due to their actions and it is not one species using another.

That is the case for most symbiotic relationships I can think of. For example, pilot fish and sharks. Sharks happen to host bacteria that the pilot fish eat. Eating the bacteria is obviously beneficial for the pilot fish and happens to benefit the shark as well. It's not that the pilot fish specifically chose sharks to eat bacteria from. This appears to be happenstance.

Some of the examples of ants and aphids seems to be happenstance. The ants defend an aphid from another creature that eats/destroys the aphids so that the ants can eat it. That's fighting to protect their food source - something I consider "necessary for survival" and not "beneficial for survival".

The case I cited where the ants will harvest the aphid eggs, store them safely for the winter, then bring them back to plants to hatch is along the lines of "beneficial for survival". It's an intentional use of aphids as a food source with what appears to be a methodology of breeding and sustaining their honeydew food source. It's a "step above" a symbiotic relationship in my eyes. [2]

[1] http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2814...

[2] Again, I recognize that where I'm drawing my line might be arbitrary to some people. I hope I explained how I see some of the scenarios as different to one another in a way that other people can understand where I stand. If not, please ask questions.

[enraged_camel]

>>But it's natural of wolves hunt their prey to extinction and as a result, starve themselves into extinction?

The problem is that we aren't starving ourselves into extinction as a result of overkilling rhinos. We're simply moving on to the next species and driving them extinct, then moving on to the next, etc.

So basically, by the time we are extinct, it may be too late.

[JoeAltmaier]

That's the leap I object to: that somehow losing the rhino's matters one whit to our survival. The popular mythology takes it as a premise. I reject it, as not based on any evidence or reasonable argument. Will my Angus beef dry up because, rhino? No.

[Nadya]

>The problem is that we aren't starving ourselves into extinction as a result of overkilling rhinos.

That's my point - and I don't see how it's a problem unless you consider the extinction of the human race a good thing?

>We're simply moving on to the next species and driving them extinct, then moving on to the next, etc.

So it's as if wolves ran out of moose and deer so began hunting rabbits and small game. They still hadn't figured out how to raise their own food and will eventually run out of food sources. Thankfully, humans have the "food sources" problem sorted out. [1]

>So basically, by the time we are extinct, it may be too late.

Late for what? Even "without human interaction" - animals still go extinct. It's a natural thing, even a very normal thing. With 99% of species going extinct I would argue it's not normal for a species to not go extinct.

Humans are largely against other species going extinct though. I guess there's that tinge of guilt for being the "root cause of the problem". Though to pretend it is somehow unnatural and not how the world works is silly and childish. Predators have caused prey to go extinct for hundreds of thousands of years.

[1] Because we grow food and raise animals for consumption. Most species don't do this.

[enraged_camel]

>>Though to pretend it is somehow unnatural and not how the world works is silly and childish. Predators have caused prey to go extinct for hundreds of thousands of years.

Yes, but not at the rate and scale that we are causing species to go extinct. We're essentially the equivalent of a mass-extinction event for most species on the planet.

Furthermore, species in nature tend to be in certain states of equilibrium because every predator is prey for something else. Except humans: we're at the top of the food chain and the only threat we face is from ourselves.

[ProAm]

Humans are an invasive aggressive species, I don't think it's unnatural at all for that to occur.

[enupten]

Isn't that a bit too agnostic (and fatalistic too) ? I mean it is us who are causing the downfall afterall.

I agree that on the large scale we're no less "natural" or "conscious", but surely we can be better than a Meteor or a Supervolcano.

[JoeAltmaier]

That's very true. But consider: millions of creatures went extinct before our time. What we see today is just those that happened to be extant as we came to civilization. Are they more important than all those that came before? Are they significant at all?

Some say yes; others think perhaps an albino tiger isn't all that pertinent, when we can (soon) create a pink polka-dot tiger that fetches your slippers.

[enupten]

That's like saying, I know my life doesn't mean anything to the Universe, and then consequently jumping out the window.

[bduerst]

According to WWF, 52% of the Earth's biodiversity has been lost since 1970.

Mass extinction events from millions of years ago are not really relevant to discussion about protecting existing endangered species from human exploitation.

[JoeAltmaier]

Really? Only if we didn't understand why. We understand perfectly well why - we're crowding them out. Its not some terrible mystery.