The Grim tide of extinction rolls on

Birdnuts

http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?202074


This unique sub-species of the already critically endangered Javan Rhino is gone for ever. Primarily due to Vietnams shocking record on conservation that will soon account for its remaining large mammals. This country is also second only to China as a player in the worldwide trade in illegal wildlife products(rhino horn, tiger bone etc.) that is driving species extinction everywhere from Africa to India. Shame on a country that is no third world back water but considers itself one of the Asian tiger economies, yet appears unable or unwilling to provide the type of basic protection for legally protected species, even in National Parks. Even certain war-torn third-world countries manage to do a better job in this area eg, Virunga NP in the Congo etc.

Mickeroo

Thanks for that Birdnuts. Thats awful news made all the worse by the fact it was shot. It just makes my blood boil.:mad: Unfortunately there's not very much that can be done in cases like this as no-one really has the power to intervene and force places like China or Vietnam to change their policies.

steddyeddy

The closest thing I could do to express my anger towards this result is write to the vietnamese embassy in London conveying my disgust at their countrys attitudes towards endangered species.

Baron de Robeck

This is the second sub-species of Javan Rhino to be declared extinct, the first was found in Burma (as it was called then). More poached rhino horn is now heading for Vietnam than it is to China after some cabinet minister claimed it was a cure for cancer. Rhino horn of course has no medicinal properties and extensive analysis has proven this, you would get the same results as grinding up and ingesting your own finger nails!!

The 40-50 surviving Javan Rhinos are in one park in Indonesia and are still breeding but they need to have their territory increased to help boost numbers and a project is on-going to achieve this. Having only one population is very risky as a natural disaster or disease could wipe it out.

Mickeroo

More sad news, a siberian tiger which was spotted in China a few days ago was found dead. The body was intact but they're still not ruling out poachers, autopsy is ongoing. Such a shame.



:mad:

I'll never understand what can make people do things like that(assuming it was indeed poachers). Such a senseless waste. I would understand if an animal was being killed to feed a family but something like a tiger is surely only being killed for its fur or because a few deluded people think some of its body parts might cure diseases.

steddyeddy

Humans have been responsible for the sixth mass extinction event (holocene extinction). Its sad that the most intelligent species on earth are a species with no foresight.

Galvasean

Birdnuts

http://www.birdlife.org/community/2011/10/imperial-woodpecker-1956-film/

Another example of humanities ignorance, greed and cruelty - this time taking out one of the most magnificient species of woodpecker that ever lived:(

Birdnuts

steddyeddy wrote: »

The closest thing I could do to express my anger towards this result is write to the vietnamese embassy in London conveying my disgust at their countrys attitudes towards endangered species.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7738364.stm

It appears the rot is at all levels - I hope this **** gets sent home in a diplomatic bag:mad:

Birdnuts

Baron de Robeck wrote: »

This is the second sub-species of Javan Rhino to be declared extinct, the first was found in Burma (as it was called then). More poached rhino horn is now heading for Vietnam than it is to China after some cabinet minister claimed it was a cure for cancer. Rhino horn of course has no medicinal properties and extensive analysis has proven this, you would get the same results as grinding up and ingesting your own finger nails!!

The 40-50 surviving Javan Rhinos are in one park in Indonesia and are still breeding but they need to have their territory increased to help boost numbers and a project is on-going to achieve this. Having only one population is very risky as a natural disaster or disease could wipe it out.

Going on the blog below its clear this species never stood a chance is such a dysfunctional country - its also clear the species was only being kept going by the efforts of foreign NGO's. Its also apparent that the last individual lead a very distressing and lonely life:(


http://rhinomania.blogspot.com/

Baron de Robeck

Yes indeed, the blogspot above sums it up the rhinos were doomed in Vietnam. There just wasn't any serious will to save them. In Indonesia the government seem to be taking the situation far more seriously and hopefully the regained area of the park will allow a second population to build. Javan rhinos and their lifestyles are the least known of all rhinos as their habitat is difficult to negotiate around and none are in captivity. They are generally regarded as solitary in nature apart from females with a calf but could well have small social groups. One bit of trivia is that they are the only rhinos known to drink salt water.

Mickeroo

Birdnuts wrote: »

http://www.birdlife.org/community/2011/10/imperial-woodpecker-1956-film/

Another example of humanities ignorance, greed and cruelty - this time taking out one of the most magnificient species of woodpecker that ever lived:(

Thought this might be at home in this thread too.

There's a very eerie quality to the footage knowing it was the only ever taken.

Birdnuts

The extinction of this unique Rhino means that in the past 5 years alone we have lost 3 unique sub-species. The Western Black, Northern White and this animal. Truelly shocking stuff:( - and the only reason we still have some of the others is thanx to 24 hr armed security in many cases. Despite this the likes of SA continues to lose a Rhino nearly every day thanx to the increasingly ruthless nature of international sydicates using high-powered weapons, helicopters etc. to feed demand for Rhino horn in Asia:mad:

steddyeddy

A lot more people are killed by anti poaching units than people think. Theres a ranger in africa who wants to introduce small amounts of poison to rhino horn so the demand for the horn would decrease.

Birdnuts

steddyeddy wrote: »

A lot more people are killed by anti poaching units than people think. Theres a ranger in africa who wants to introduce small amounts of poison to rhino horn so the demand for the horn would decrease.

The situation is getting so bad that desperate times called for desperate measures:( - the army is now being used in Tanzania, SA and Kenya to halt the escalation in this war for Africas wildlife. Similiar measures were used in the 80's when an explosion in the price of Ivory nearly did for elephants. Sadly it appears we are back to those dark days.

Sid_Justice

What's with the overly poetic and self-indulgent title? I find people who are too preachy about conservation often do more harm than good.

Extinction is nothing new nor is it particularly grim, it's an inevitable part natural selection and evolution.

I do find it abhorrent that poaching is leading to the quick demise of these wonderful rare animals. We need to see a a precedent set, much like the EU and turkey for example with regard to human rights, if a country is not seen to endorse internal law and regulation on the protection of environment and species they should have their importing and exporting curtailed.

I am never going to knowledgeably buy a Vietnamese product ever again. I might take steddy's lead on this and make my views known to the embassy.

Birdnuts

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/vietnam-ivory.html

This subspecies is in big trouble over most of its shrinking range and the ongoing chaos in the DRC could tear the heart of one its last strong holds:(

Galvasean

Looks like the African antelope is on the way out. that would be the end of not just it's species, but the very genus Beatragus. To put it into context, a whole mamma genus has not gone extinct since the tazmanian 'tiger'
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111108-hirolas-extinct-genus-animals-science-africa-antelopes/

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

Looks like the African antelope is on the way out. that would be the end of not just it's species, but the very genus Beatragus. To put it into context, a whole mamma genus has not gone extinct since the tazmanian 'tiger'
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111108-hirolas-extinct-genus-animals-science-africa-antelopes/

Not quite... the Baiji was a genus of its own (Lipotes). It was also the first cetacean to go extinct due to humans (at least in recorded history). Ironically, Lipotes means "left behind".

Galvasean

I hold out hope that the Baiji is still hiding out there. Aquatic creatures have a habit of reappearing the odd time.

Galvasean

Just thought I'd post a beacon of hope in a sea of sadness...
http://www.livescience.com/16962-endangered-rhinos-airlifted-africa.html

HugoBradyBrown

To strike a possibly contrarian tone here, is it certain that the prevention of the extinction of species (and, a fortiori of sub-species) is a wholly bad thing? I sometimes think that we may be simply sentimentally and nostalgically considering the pretty organisms of our own present or recent past. Who would care if the brown rat or the black rat became extinct? No tears were shed for the smallpox virus. We show concern for tigers and other visibly interesting or apparently splendid animals; we might worry less if a species of cockroach, or Colorado beetle or of hagfish were involved.

Is the opening up of an ecological niche not a stimulus to speciation? If we were to impose stasis on the biosphere, the arousal of entirely new species or even of genera would not continue.

When the dinosaurs died out, the world was in one sense more species-poor, yet it was followed, under the ineluctable force of evolution, by the explosion of mammalian evolution, right up to the very pinnacle of evolution, Homo sapiens. Without such extiction, we would have no happy Homo sapiens.

I suspect that extinction is in fact part of the larger system, and that it functions as an important spur to evolution, by, in effect, clearing the 'brownfield sites' of already occupied ecological niches.

Galvasean

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

right up to the very pinnacle of evolution, Homo sapiens.

Such blinkered self important arrogance...
Not to let such a phrase undermine your entire argument (which bears discussing) so I will address it.
I do not feel that humanity wiping out a multitude of species and habitats is in any way helpful to evolution. Yes when a mass extinction occurs there is room for other organisms to flourish in their place. However, in destroying a multitude of diverse eco-systems and habitats and replacing them with our own identically homogenized ones, humanity runs the risk of creating a world with a very limited and specific scope for variety of species. This can be catastrophic when a major extinction event comes into play. That is why the Permian extinction of some 250MYA as so catastrophic (to date recognised as the worst mass extinction event in the Earth's history) - the limited number of unique habitats created by the supercontinent Pangea meant there was much less variety among living organisms. Less variety means less chance of something having the adaptations to survive a great extinction event.
Creatures come and go naturally all the time. It's natural selection and a part of nature. No one can deny this. However, if we carelessly wipe out the multitude of habitats and subsequently those creatures which live within them we are shooting life on Earth in the foot as a result. If the Earth were struck by a meteor tomorrow life's best chance at survival would be to have as many different creatures as possible in the hope that some would have what it takes to survive and repopulate the changed planet.

Mickeroo

Galvasean wrote: »

Just thought I'd post a beacon of hope in a sea of sadness...
http://www.livescience.com/16962-endangered-rhinos-airlifted-africa.html

Hopefully something comes of that plan, seems the Western Black Rhino is already gone though.

No wild black rhinos remain in West Africa, according to the latest global assessment of threatened species.

The Red List, drawn up by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), has declared the subspecies extinct.

A subspecies of white rhino in central Africa is also listed as possibly extinct, the organisation says.

The annual update of the Red List now records more threatened species than ever before.

The IUCN reports that despite conservation efforts, 25% of the world's mammals are at risk of extinction. As part of its latest work it has reassessed several rhinoceros groups.
Poaching vulnerability

As well as declaring the western black rhino (Diceros bicornis longipes) extinct, it records the northern white rhino (Ceratotherium simum cottoni), a subspecies in central Africa, as being on the brink of extinction.

The last Javan rhino (Rhinoceros sondaicus) outside Java is also believed to have disappeared.

Overall numbers of black and white rhinos have been rising, but some subspecies have been particularly vulnerable to poaching by criminal gangs who want to trade the animals' valuable horns.

aidoh

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

To strike a possibly contrarian tone here, is it certain that the prevention of the extinction of species (and, a fortiori of sub-species) is a wholly bad thing? I sometimes think that we may be simply sentimentally and nostalgically considering the pretty organisms of our own present or recent past. Who would care if the brown rat or the black rat became extinct? No tears were shed for the smallpox virus. We show concern for tigers and other visibly interesting or apparently splendid animals; we might worry less if a species of cockroach, or Colorado beetle or of hagfish were involved.

(A) Is the opening up of an ecological niche not a stimulus to speciation? If we were to impose stasis on the biosphere, the arousal of entirely new species or even of genera would not continue.

When the dinosaurs died out, the world was in one sense more species-poor, yet it was followed, under the ineluctable force of evolution, by the explosion of mammalian evolution, right up to the very pinnacle of evolution, Homo sapiens. Without such extiction, we would have no happy Homo sapiens.

(B) I suspect that extinction is in fact part of the larger system, and that it functions as an important spur to evolution, by, in effect, clearing the 'brownfield sites' of already occupied ecological niches.

(A) Kind of. But you couldn't 'force' a type to evolve based on the availability of some limited resource? In any case, you do know how slow and unpredictable the processes of evolutionary change are, right?

(B) Faunal turnovers are very natural (e.g. as you mentioned, the 'replacement' of dinosaurs and subsequent radiation of mammals as the dominant fauna [even though we aren't!]), but I think it's pretty rotten that people can so easily and so rapidly wipe out so much of the biodiversity on earth - which is obviously 'unnatural', or whatever.

HugoBradyBrown

aidoh wrote: »

(A) Kind of. But you couldn't 'force' a type to evolve based on the availability of some limited resource? In any case, you do know how slow and unpredictable the processes of evolutionary change are, right?

(B) Faunal turnovers are very natural (e.g. as you mentioned, the 'replacement' of dinosaurs and subsequent radiation of mammals as the dominant fauna [even though we aren't!]), but I think it's pretty rotten that people can so easily and so rapidly wipe out so much of the biodiversity on earth - which is obviously 'unnatural', or whatever.

Yes, I see your point, but is point A not one with a repellent sense of teleological preference, and is point B not undermined by a taint of sentimentality? If the biosphere evolved to contain only bacteria, that would be life, and possibly in every degree as varied and interesting as the current load of biota.

Birdnuts

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

To strike a possibly contrarian tone here, is it certain that the prevention of the extinction of species (and, a fortiori of sub-species) is a wholly bad thing? I sometimes think that we may be simply sentimentally and nostalgically considering the pretty organisms of our own present or recent past. Who would care if the brown rat or the black rat became extinct? No tears were shed for the smallpox virus. We show concern for tigers and other visibly interesting or apparently splendid animals; we might worry less if a species of cockroach, or Colorado beetle or of hagfish were involved.

Is the opening up of an ecological niche not a stimulus to speciation? If we were to impose stasis on the biosphere, the arousal of entirely new species or even of genera would not continue.

When the dinosaurs died out, the world was in one sense more species-poor, yet it was followed, under the ineluctable force of evolution, by the explosion of mammalian evolution, right up to the very pinnacle of evolution, Homo sapiens. Without such extiction, we would have no happy Homo sapiens.

I suspect that extinction is in fact part of the larger system, and that it functions as an important spur to evolution, by, in effect, clearing the 'brownfield sites' of already occupied ecological niches.

The earth has never seen such a sustained rate of extinction across all habitats - as regards niches, the only species that appear to benefit from mankinds assualt on the planet are likes of jellyfish, rats and cockroaches. Not a pleasant proposition for future generations or the planet in general:(

Birdnuts

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Yes, I see your point, but is point A not one with a repellent sense of teleological preference, and is point B not undermined by a taint of sentimentality? If the biosphere evolved to contain only bacteria, that would be life, and possibly in every degree as varied and interesting as the current load of biota.

How do you see 7 billion + people getting by in your bacteria world??

HugoBradyBrown

Birdnuts wrote: »

The earth has never seen such a sustained rate of extinction across all habitats - as regards niches, the only species that appear to benefit from mankinds assualt on the planet are likes of jellyfish, rats and cockroaches. Not a pleasant proposition for future generations or the planet in general:(

Unsentimentally, I disagree. To the planet, rats may be little worse than humans or pandas. And if such species were to dominate, it is not unlikely that a new explosion of speciation would occur, and a new range of lifeforms would appear. Except for keeping cuddly or apparently cuddly organisms on life-support, there are no sound grounds for such extraordinary efforts to reverse a process. Humans and our technology are in themselves a part of the evolutionary story, with good and bad effects, by various different measures,

Adam Khor

I was actually going to adress this thread but then I read that someone refered to humans as "the pinnacle of evolution".
So, nah.

Birdnuts

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Unsentimentally, I disagree. To the planet, rats may be little worse than humans or pandas. And if such species were to dominate, it is not unlikely that a new explosion of speciation would occur, and a new range of lifeforms would appear. Except for keeping cuddly or apparently cuddly organisms on life-support, there are no sound grounds for such extraordinary efforts to reverse a process. Humans and our technology are in themselves a part of the evolutionary story, with good and bad effects, by various different measures,

Its nothing to do with "sentimentality" - billions of people around the world depend directly or indirectly on intact ecosystems for food,medicines, shelter, water resources and a stable climate etc.. Your unsentimental future world of slime is unlikely to work out well for mankind and the vast majority of other life forms:(.

aidoh

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Yes, I see your point, but is point A not one with a repellent sense of teleological preference, and is point B not undermined by a taint of sentimentality? If the biosphere evolved to contain only bacteria, that would be life, and possibly in every degree as varied and interesting as the current load of biota.

Well there should be a sense of sentimentality where conservation is concerned in my opinion. Do you think future generations of humans will look back on our society's lack of action and thank us for it, saying "ah good at least they were very stone-faced and non-sentimental about letting those few thousand species disappear forever"

In general... I'm not sure what you really mean, to be honest.

HugoBradyBrown

Adam Khor wrote: »

I was actually going to adress this thread but then I read that someone refered to humans as "the pinnacle of evolution".
So, nah.

No, I accept that humans are part of evolution; the final stage in their line, and nothing as sophisticated has yet arisen. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that some other line could evolve into something different but of equivalent sophistication. I am keeping a watchful eye on the octopus, myself.

HugoBradyBrown

aidoh wrote: »

Well there should be a sense of sentimentality where conservation is concerned in my opinion. Do you think future generations of humans will look back on our society's lack of action and thank us for it, saying "ah good at least they were very stone-faced and non-sentimental about letting those few thousand species disappear forever"

In general... I'm not sure what you really mean, to be honest.

Well then, I think,we are being anthropocentric, and caring sentimentally for humans' pleasure in the distant future, and not for the magnificent process of evolution, which might, in its blind wisdom, sweep us away in the twinkling of an eye.

Adam Khor

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

No, I accept that humans are part of evolution; the final stage in their line, and nothing as sophisticated has yet arisen. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that some other line could evolve into something different but of equivalent sophistication. I am keeping a watchful eye on the octopus, myself.

Only evolution is not a line, its much more complex than that. As for "sophistication", I would say there is plenty of that in other species. Look at social insects for example. Or parasites. Read Parasite Rex for example. If it doesn´t change your view of the universe certainly nothing will.

aidoh

Anthropogenic extinction actually alters natural evolutionary forces though.
And in any case, even if it didn't, what kind of justification is that for causing plants and animals to become extinct?
They aren't dying because they're running themselves into some kind of evolutionary dead end, they're dying because we're killing them.
Is the argument that you're making basically 'humans evolved, therefore humans causing extinction is a natural part of evolution'?
I guess that sort of is true but it's not like we're a very natural animal any more.
EDIT: @ Hugo's last post.

HugoBradyBrown

aidoh wrote: »

Anthropogenic extinction actually alters natural evolutionary forces though.
And in any case, even if it didn't, what kind of justification is that for causing plants and animals to become extinct?
They aren't dying because they're running themselves into some kind of evolutionary dead end, they're dying because we're killing them.
Is the argument that you're making basically 'humans evolved, therefore humans causing extinction is a natural part of evolution'?
I guess that sort of is true but it's not like we're a very natural animal any more.

In a sense, yes, much as, for example, an infectious disease evolves and wipes out a population or an entire species. In our inter-reaction with other species, we are on all fours with a bacterial infection. To think better of ourselves is to fall prey to a anthropocentric fantasy.

Adam Khor

aidoh wrote: »

Anthropogenic extinction actually alters natural evolutionary forces though.
And in any case, even if it didn't, what kind of justification is that for causing plants and animals to become extinct?
They aren't dying because they're running themselves into some kind of evolutionary dead end, they're dying because we're killing them.
Is the argument that you're making basically 'humans evolved, therefore humans causing extinction is a natural part of evolution'?
I guess that sort of is true but it's not like we're a very natural animal any more.

I agree with aidoh. Also, and I may be the odd man here, because I am more of an artist than a scientist... but, isn´t it normal for paintings to decay and be lost, and for statues to crumble into dust? Yes, but because we, as humans, can appreciate their beauty, we go to great lenghts to preserve the best examples of them.
We are all going to die, but, does that keep us from going to the doctor, and staying away from fire and cliffs and venomous snakes so that we can live longer? Why? Because we love life...

Conservation shouldn´t be about science, it should be about respect and awe before the wonders of nature. That's the whole point of it. It would be arrogant to believe that we can fix a broken ecosystem. Only nature can do that. We are preserving art masterpieces, that's all.
And also, perhaps, we should think that species are more than just genetics- we're dealing with lives here. Any human who considers himself morally superior to the rest of animals, but thinks its ok for humans to terminate millions of lives, because "they are all going to die anyways", is just lying to himself.

aidoh

Adam Khor wrote: »

I agree with aidoh. Also, and I may be the odd man here, because I am more of an artist than a scientist... but, isn´t it normal for paintings to decay and be lost, and for statues to crumble into dust? Yes, but because we, as humans, can appreciate their beauty, we go to great lenghts to preserve the best examples of them.
We are all going to die, but, does that keep us from going to the doctor, and staying away from fire and cliffs and venomous snakes so that we can live longer? Why? Because we love life...

Conservation shouldn´t be about science, it should be about respect and awe before the wonders of nature. That's the whole point of it. It would be arrogant to believe that we can fix a broken ecosystem. Only nature can do that. We are preserving art masterpieces, that's all.
And also, perhaps, we should think that species are more than just genetics- we're dealing with lives here. Any human who considers himself morally superior to the rest of animals, but thinks its ok for humans to terminate millions of lives, because "they are all going to die anyways", is just lying to himself.

Well put. Except conservation does of course need to be informed by science.
I heard it put once as "the only science with a time-limit". Can't remember by who but I thought it was a nice expression.

Adam Khor

aidoh wrote: »

Well put. Except conservation does of course need to be informed by science.
I heard it put once as "the only science with a time-limit". Can't remember by who but I thought it was a nice expression.

Agree, and, agree

Mickeroo

Adam Khor wrote: »

I agree with aidoh. Also, and I may be the odd man here, because I am more of an artist than a scientist... but, isn´t it normal for paintings to decay and be lost, and for statues to crumble into dust? Yes, but because we, as humans, can appreciate their beauty, we go to great lenghts to preserve the best examples of them.
We are all going to die, but, does that keep us from going to the doctor, and staying away from fire and cliffs and venomous snakes so that we can live longer? Why? Because we love life...

Conservation shouldn´t be about science, it should be about respect and awe before the wonders of nature. That's the whole point of it. It would be arrogant to believe that we can fix a broken ecosystem. Only nature can do that. We are preserving art masterpieces, that's all.
And also, perhaps, we should think that species are more than just genetics- we're dealing with lives here. Any human who considers himself morally superior to the rest of animals, but thinks its ok for humans to terminate millions of lives, because "they are all going to die anyways", is just lying to himself.

Just to making something clear before I throw my hat in the ring, I am entirely pro-conservation and I buy into everything you just said

However, I also think HugoBradyBrown is actually making a valid point. Like you said about paintings and statues, we preserve them because they are beautiful, but they are only beautiful to us. If you look at it objectively, conservation is actually quite a unique and strange trait, you don't see other animals trying to prevent extinction, but then again you don't see other animals going around causing extinctions on the scale we do.

The thing is though, other animals do on occasion wipe others out, not on purpose but as a by product of their need for a common resource or predation etc. To say humans wipe other species out on purpose is a little too black and white a way to put it, it implies ecosystems are only destroyed for the sake of it but that is almost never the case, it's nearly always a direct result of our need/want for a resource of some sort and when viewed objectively is it really any different from any other animal doing what they need to survive or maintain their way of life?

Now don't get me wrong, thats only when viewed objectively and the crux of the issue for me is that,as humans we generally don't and should not view it objectively. Thats what sets us apart. The fact that we are aware of the consequences of our actions is what gives us the responsibility to try and make it so nature evolves and changes at its own pace and not the pace we impose on it.

Adam Khor

Mickeroo wrote: »

as humans we generally don't and should not view it objectively. Thats what sets us apart. The fact that we are aware of the consequences of our actions is what gives us the responsibility to try and make it so nature evolves and changes at its own pace and not the pace we impose on it.

This.

HugoBradyBrown

Birdnuts wrote: »

How do you see 7 billion + people getting by in your bacteria world??

My Gedankenexperiment was considering that there would be no Homo sapiens, but that the manifold variety of evolved life might continue, possibly only in such 'lower' forms of life as bacteria. Or perhaps viruses might be the final carriers of base-pair information who can guess?

Galvasean

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

No, I accept that humans are part of evolution; the final stage in their line,

What makes you so certain humans are done evolving?

HugoBradyBrown

Galvasean wrote: »

What makes you so certain humans are done evolving?

My sense is that medical intervention, global interchange of genetic material, the suppression of Malthusian triggers and other such technological and intelligent measures serve to disarm the evolutionary process in humans.

Mickeroo

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

My sense is that medical intervention, global interchange of genetic material, the suppression of Malthusian triggers and other such technological and intelligent measures serve to disarm the evolutionary process in humans.

I don't think evolution can stop unless a species becomes extinct of course, its an un-ending process as far as we know. The things you have mentioned which would "disarm" evolution are just products of evolution themselves which will also in turn effect our evolution further.

For example, the more we rely on medical treatment its possible our immune systems will gradually weaken over time which would be a result of evolution. I'm not saying that it is happening but it could.

Mickeroo

Just read this on the guardian, following an investigation it seems plain stupidity and gullibility has managed to more or less wipe three populations of Rhino off the planet in the last while:

It may have been a consumer rumour as much as a poacher's gun that finished off the last rhino in Vietnam. An investigation into the extermination of the animal has led back to a dubious claim – one that has gone viral in Vietnam in recent years – that powdered rhino horn cures cancer.

The rumour, which has no basis in science or traditional Chinese medicine, is believed responsible for a surge in demand that is blamed for the loss of three rhino populations in the past year, a wildlife NGO claimed this week. It has prompted conservation groups to begin an urgent review of strategies to identify and affect trends in consumer behaviour.

The Javan rhino was declared extinct in Vietnam last month after the last one was found dead with a bullet in its leg and its horn sawn off. This month, it was followed by Africa's western black rhinoceros and by warnings that the Sumatran rhino is on the brink of extinction in Indonesia.

This followed years of relative stability. The illegal rhino market went quiet in the late 90s as the two main sources of demand – dagger handles in Yemen and fever suppressants in China – were choked with a mix of government crackdowns and viable alternatives. As recently as 2007, only 13 rhinos were poached in South Africa. This year, the number is already 341.

For the full article have a look here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/25/cure-cancer-rhino-horn-vietnam

It makes you wonder just what goes on in peoples heads sometimes. :mad:

Adam Khor

Mickeroo wrote: »

Just read this on the guardian, following an investigation it seems plain stupidity and gullibility has managed to more or less wipe three populations of Rhino off the planet in the last while:




For the full article have a look here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/25/cure-cancer-rhino-horn-vietnam

It makes you wonder just what goes on in peoples heads sometimes. :mad:

I say, if those rhinos are to be saved, they need to be bred somewhere else. Asia is no longer safe for them. Remember that antelope species that was saved from extinction because it was bred in North America?
Someone has to do the same with rhinos! It's already been attempted with tigers. At this point, it may be the only solution.

Birdnuts

Adam Khor wrote: »

I say, if those rhinos are to be saved, they need to be bred somewhere else. Asia is no longer safe for them. Remember that antelope species that was saved from extinction because it was bred in North America?
Someone has to do the same with rhinos! It's already been attempted with tigers. At this point, it may be the only solution.

There was talk a few years back of re-creating some Asian Savannah habitats on the vast empty grasslands of Van Arnhem land in Western Autralia(most large marsupial equivalents are now extinct of course). As it is a type of wild cattle on the verge of extinction in their Asian homeland is now found in the hundreds in the Autralian outback - I guess desperate times call for desperate measures!!

Mickeroo

Birdnuts wrote: »

There was talk a few years back of re-creating some Asian Savannah habitats on the vast empty grasslands of Van Arnhem land in Western Autralia(most large marsupial equivalents are now extinct of course). As it is a type of wild cattle on the verge of extinction in their Asian homeland is now found in the hundreds in the Autralian outback - I guess desperate times call for desperate measures!!

Did the cattle have any adverse effects on the local eco-system? Introducing an alien species,even if to fill a niche, is risky business, especially somewhere as fragile as Australie.


In other news it seems the Indonesian Orangutan could be in trouble now:

Conservationists have called on the Indonesian authorities to take urgent action to save the orangutan after a report warned that the endangered great apes were being hunted at a rate that could bring them to the brink of extinction.

Erik Meijaard, who led a team carrying out the first attempt to assess the scale of the problem in Kalimantan, the Indonesian part of Borneo, said the results showed that between 750 and 1,800 orangutans were killed as a result of hunting and deforestation in the 12 months to April 2008.

The numbers, which were higher than expected, indicated that most orangutan populations in Kalimantan could be in serious danger "within the foreseeable future", said Meijaard, of the Jakarta-based People and Nature Consulting International. "At that rate… you're talking about 10-15 years until pretty much all orangutans [in Kalimantan] are gone."

Home to 90% of the world's orangutans, Indonesia also has one of the highest rates of deforestation – a phenomenon driven by a combination of illegal logging, palm oil plantations and gold mining. Loss of habitat is the main reason behind the steep decline in both the Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) and its critically endangered Sumatran counterpart (Pongo abelii). The Sumatran orangutan population is believed to be less than 7,000 and has featured on the World's 25 Most Endangered Primates list since its inception in 2000. In Borneo, an estimated 54,000 orangutans survive, half the number of 25 years ago.

Birdnuts

A particularly despicable act:mad:

http://safaritalk.net/topic/7701-4-rhinos-killed-last-night-in-the-lowveldt/