[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.

[Nadya]

We're more efficient than other animals at the killing of other animals. That does not make it not natural. We, like every other species on Earth, are simply that: A species on Earth. We're just particularly better and more efficient than most animals at Earth for destructive behavior. No other species on Earth can turn an 8 mile plot of land into a barren wasteland devoid of life in a moment with the detonation of a nuclear weapon.

>Furthermore, species in nature tend to be in certain states of equilibrium because every predator is prey for something else.

This is not entirely true, I'll add a new term for your vocabulary: Apex predator [0] There is a reason it is called a "food chain" and not a "food pyramid".

Predators die off because of many reasons. Some are human caused and others aren't. Let's bring a bit of math into this: Lotka-Volterra predator-prey equation [1]

I forget the exact term for population dynamics but "food source goes down, predator population dies off, predator population dying off means more food source survives, more food source means fewer predators die from starvation and the cycle continues". It's possible to reach a point of no return if too much of the prey dies off. This happens, I would like to refer to my wolves example from earlier.

[0] Have a look at the "extant" section in particular. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apex_predators

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation

[enraged_camel]

>>We're more efficient than other animals at the killing of other animals. That does not make it not natural. We, like every other species on Earth, are simply that: A species on Earth.

I think you're a bit too focused on the literal definition of the word "natural," and that's rather pedantic. Yes, we're a part of nature. That doesn't mean our actions are ordinary, or like that of other animals. On the contrary, we're incredibly efficient at everything we do, and the impact we're having on the planet is unprecedented. There has never been a species in the entire history of Earth like us. And since we're so vastly different, it's incorrect to treat what we're doing as "natural."

[Nadya]

>There has never been a species in the entire history of Earth like us. And since we're so vastly different, it's incorrect to treat what we're doing as "natural."

This is where we are splitting hairs. I find it both unfair and arrogant to argue that it is, somehow, not natural. That humans are somehow above nature.

When the resources we depend on are depleted and become scarce, we'll see population decrease - the same natural limitation placed onto every other species. When the resources (ie. food sources) they depend on deplete. They die off.

This is why "natural power" (eg. wind, solar) is so important. This is why "renewable resources" are so important. This is why figuring out how to recycle materials is important. This is why purifying water is important. This is why getting us off of this planet and into space is so important.

The importance of these things is because our very survival as a species depends on these things.

We are a part of nature. We are subject to the same laws that govern other species. These same laws that cause entire species to go extinct. We are not above these laws. Our very survival as a species depends on recognizing this fact and being fucking terrified of this fact.

E: I feel we're straying a bit.

There are legitimate and scientific reasons for why causing species to go extinct is bad for humans. We lose valuable data and the ability to research and learn from these species to better understand our world.

"Boo hoo, this beautiful species is now extinct" is not a reason I care for.

The argument of "it's unnatural" is also not compelling. Efficiency does not make it unnatural, it makes it efficient.

[dm2]

You argue that humans are not above nature, yet we are the only species that can instantly (and silently) communicate about abstract topics from and to anywhere in the world.

Humans have the unique ability to notice that animals go extinct, we even have the ability to be gods and decide to bring the species back from extinction or not.

What is lost by losing the NORTHERN White Rhino when the SOUTHERN White Rhino is the same creature, just located in a different area?

Allowing the Northern White Rhino to go temporarily extinct is an amazing ability that ONLY humans have ever had. We can easily bring the species back when we solve the poaching problem. Right now poaching is too expensive to defend against while ensuring a high-quality of life for these animals.

Yes, the poachers will still hunt, but it will be more costly for the poachers and hopefully that will deter them somewhat.

[DanBC]

Northern White Rhinos are not the same animal as Souther White Rhinos. They are sub-species of White Rhinos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_rhinoceros

There's a possibility that the Northern White Rhino animal is very different to the Southern White Rhino animal.

> Following the phylogenetic species concept, recent research has suggested the northern white rhinoceros may be an altogether different species, rather than a subspecies of white rhinoceros, in which case the correct scientific name for the former is Ceratotherium cottoni. Distinct morphological and genetic differences suggest the two proposed species have been separated for at least a million years.[18]

[dm2]

There are more important species in endangered status, in my opinion. Millions of dollars for a hopeless cause to save an animal that only has a small genetic difference and very little physical difference.

The "should be their own species" argument was primarily brought on to promote the endangered status of the rhinos anyways. http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/05/03/new-speci...

"The danger in making this sort of suggestion, however, is that changing the taxonomy to suit conservation priority could eventually backfire: it would not look good if zoologists were thought to be tweaking their conclusions in order to suit their favoured conservation projects."