Species extinction - who cares?

[Richard]

Given that it's been estimated something like 99.9% of all the species that have ever existed throughout the Earth's history are now extinct, can anyone give me a reason or reasons why we should be worried about the loss of a few species in the present day? Since they would only go extinct at some point anyway, what does it matter if this happens a bit earlier than it would naturally due to man's activities?

*moved to wildlife and biodiversity forum*

[Richard]

Do all your posts consist of *moved to such-and-such a forum*?

*pretty much*

[Richard]

*lol*

[forfi]

this shows whats happnin, birds being eaten at barbies in OZ, at least i think thats what is implied

http://apps.uws.edu.au/media/news/in...&story_id=2057

[gamer1]

I don't get what's the big deal either. I think the only ones that matter to make sure that they don't extinct are animals that people eat on a daily basis such as chickens and fishes.

Originally Posted by Richard

Given that it's been estimated something like 99.9% of all the species that have ever existed throughout the Earth's history are now extinct, can anyone give me a reason or reasons why we should be worried about the loss of a few species in the present day? Since they would only go extinct at some point anyway, what does it matter if this happens a bit earlier than it would naturally due to man's activities?

I think you kinda summed it up in that last sentance. If the difference between a species going extinct sooner or later is mankind acting with more thought and consideration for the animals we share this planet with then I would like us to take that thought and consideration.

I love this planet and I think the complexity of life on it is incredible. The chances are that this level of life is incredibly rare in the universe. Incredibly rare. So yeah, if we can avoid messing with it too much then we should do.

[TheBiodegradableMan]

I think the problem is that we're making animals, which have adapted through natural selection, go extinct. Those other 99.9% of animals were most likely ones that did not evolve or move after changes in their environment, and paid the ultimate price.

It's not about what the animals do for us (i.e. as a food source), it's about what role they play in their own ecosystem.

For example:

Pretend that the major predator in an area goes extinct due to poaching, or an even more common problem; overfishing.

Then, the populations of primary consumers/secondary consumers that were it's prey will increase greatly over the next generations until they begin to deplete their own food sources (producers).

It throws the whole ecosystem out of balance, and the ecosystem may not be able to recover.

Now, obviously that was a worst case scenario, but then we really can't tell which extinctions will cause the most damage, so it's ideal to stop all unnatural extinctions.

And also, it gets to be a problem when you're having more extinctions than the normal background extinction rate.

[Richard]

The 99.9% were adapted to their environment at some stage else they wouldn't have survived long enough to produce even a few generations of descendants. The dinosaurs were around for millions of years but didn't ultimately survive (for whatever reason). My point is that every species, even the successful ones, tend to have a finite period of existance (there are some exception such as sharks and crocodiles which seem to have been around for ages). But generally speaking even successful species do not last forever.

So unless they are vital to the ecosystem then there is no harm if they go extinct a bit earlier than would have been the case naturally.