Every so often, I will hear scientists or environmental organiztions talking about various threats to various endangered animals. And I sympathize, I really do. I don't want global warming to kill the polar bears, or rainforest harvesting to kill some species of bird that hasn't even been discovered yet, or any of the myriads of other threats to endangered animals.
But they start to lose me when they make it sound like humanity is some evil scourge intentionally trying to kill all the animals and destroy/pollute every eco-system. They make it sound like if humans didn't exist, animals would live in peace and harmony and everything would be right with the world. All I'm asking for is a little perspective.
99.9% of the plant and animal species that have ever lived on Earth are extinct, and they were extinct before humanity even existed. Extinction is a natural process, and it is a process that will continue with or without our help.
Life is not static. And it is important to remember that the loss of one species may open the door for the creation of another. Without the mass extinctions of the past, humanity, along with the other forms of life that exist today, could not exist.
I'm not saying that the various NGO's are wrong for wanting to protect species from extinction. I like Earth's animals, and given the choice, I would choose to keep them around as long as possible. (Except mosquitos. Fuck them.) All I'm saying is that change is an important and necessary part of life.
And life will go on...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I feel like this is going to be one of those 10+ response posts. I agree that environmental organizations can be annoying and I see your point BUT I have a differing opinion.
Stacey dragged me (love you honey!) to a movie about the decimation of the shark population around the world, especially in Central America. In different Asian cultures, shark fin is looked at as a delicacy and they believe shark cartilage has healing powers. The price people can get for shark fins is ridiculous, so all of the local fisherman use all sorts of illegal tactics to catch them. The local governments are corrupt and look the other way because people give sharks a negative connotation.
They have unnaturally decimated the shark population. As a result, tests have shown smaller animals that feed on coral reefs and sea plants are becoming overpopulated, which is decreasing the level of sea plantlife dramatically. This isn't good for global warming since a lot of the Earth's oxygen comes from undersea plantlife.
I think it's important to take in consideration unnatural extinction.
The shark thing is perfect illustration of my point. I can understand that humans have decimated the costal ecosystems of Central America, and this will/could cause the extinction of the sharks, related fish and plants, and contribute to global warming which could cause extinctions in thousands of other places.
My point is that while it's sad to see the shark go, it leaves a void open for a new type of organism to take its place. Maybe in ten-thousand years, the waters of Central America will populated by a new super-shark that is perfectly suited to the environment there.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't help the sharks, only that even if we could somehow completely nullify humanity's impact on that ecosystem, animals from that ecosystem would still go extinct.
But humans ARE a part of nature. And that means that everything that humans have ever created, from industial sludge and plastics, to video games and skyscrapers, is ALL nature too.
The division between man and nature has always been artificial. There is no such thing as unnatural extinction.
For that matter, there is no such thing as unnatural.
I've thought about this all day because I am lame...
And I agree with Kevin, based upon one line from his original post that I think rings the most true: "Extinction is a natural process, and it is a process that will continue with or without our help."
The last part is especially key. Sure we're not doing the sharks any favors by "unnaturally" sending them to extinction, but if it wasn't us, it'd be something else. Perhaps a new species, an asteroid, or aliens. Who could know?
And who's to say that without us right now, the shark species wouldn't be extinct? Perhaps our very existence on this planet is keeping thousands of species alive, like sharks. It something we could argue until we're blue in the face (or 25 comments deep), but we'll never know the truth.
So while I agree that we should do all we can to save engangered animals, and that what is going on with the shark population in Central America/Asia is tremendously sad, I understand that whether naturally or unnaturally (yes, I'm using that word despite Kevin's philosophical discounting of it) extinction will happen, and in the end...
There's nothing anybody can really do about it, despite their best efforts.
If thinking about things like this is lame, then I guess I'm lame too.
The thing I love most about my job is that I can do it almost automatically, giving me a space to think about random things that I find noteworthy or interesting.
So that's why you do such a shitty job with the pocket squares; you're daydreaming =).
HEY! There is NOTHING wrong with my pocket squares!
And I prefer to say that I'm investigating the metaphysical and philosophical foundations of our assumptions and beliefs about the nature of the universe and its functions.
Oh they're fine...if you like pocket squares done by a retarted four year old.
Perhaps a little more effort could be spent on the squares and less on thinking about endangered animals? I mean, they're all gonna die anyway.
"And I prefer to say that I'm investigating the metaphysical and philosophical foundations of our assumptions and beliefs about the nature of the universe and its functions."
...you would say that.
...and here's #10. Although, I didn't think 3 of them would deal with pocket squares.
I am going to go back to the unnatural vs. natural aspect (sorry I didn't keep up). In nature, organisms have different DNA. By your thought process, anything created by humans is natural because humans are a part of nature. However, humans can clone something so they have identical DNA. How can that not be considered unnatural?
Going to some definitions of nature: "occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature" "growing without human care"
In regards to the "super shark" - how could there ever become an animal that is impervious to fish hooks and fishermen spearing them? (I'm not sure if I really want you to answer that).
...I miss you guys. It probably sounds stupid, but I needed this.
Finally someone got mushy other than me! Sing it with me now..."FRIENDS FOREVER, OH WHOA, FRIENDS FOREVER!"...I miss you both too, though.
Oh, and we need to get together again...soon.
ADAM needs to argue! Then I'll gladly oblige...
Cloning can be considered natural in the same way that eveything in the entire universe can be considered natural, namely, that it exists in nature.
I think the problem here (as always) is that we have different definitions of nature. I see nature as a synonym for universe. Therefore to me, everything that exists is natural, and everything that does not exist is unnatural. Therefore, nothing unnatural exists.
I think you see nature as a way to describe everywhere that humans are not, the way that is described in the second definition that you mentioned. If you do use that definition, then could anything on Earth (that has been discovered) be natural? Humans have interacted (perhaps only indirectly, as in the case of global warming) with pretty much everything on Earth.
My definition is more of a "natural vs. man made" perspective.
Also, I think there's a difference between "interacted" and "mass killing".
The only difference is degree.
Post a Comment