Conservationists are overestimating the number of species that have been driven to extinction, scientists have said.
A study has found that a third of all mammal species declared extinct in the past few centuries have turned up alive and well.
Some of the more reclusive creatures managed to hide from sight for 80 years only to reappear within four years of being officially named extinct in the wild.... The revelations come as the world’s leading conservationists prepare for a major United Nations summit on biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan, next month.
well, 1/3 of animals. but yes, it certainly throws into question some of the no-need-for-debate assumptions that have swirled around extinction threat/rate issues
If a species, though, is extinct due to an inability to adapt - then why do we really *need* them to survive?
So we're not the "reason" for their extinction? Good old human guilt - emotional preservation. It happens - but it better not be *our* fault.
Extinction kills of a lot of otherwise useful species that have use in scientific or medical applications. We would be better off ignoring cute and worthless animals in favor of organisms vital to the planets ecosystem or have other practical uses.
If a species, though, is extinct due to an inability to adapt - then why do we really *need* them to survive?
So we're not the "reason" for their extinction? Good old human guilt - emotional preservation. It happens - but it better not be *our* fault.
The problem is once you start doing that, you run the risk of a systemic collapse. I hate to trot out the "web of life" metaphor but it's an apt one, if you start cutting strands based on your own value judgement, you run the risk of a failure in the ecosystem because you've removed too many parts that you cant put back.If a species, though, is extinct due to an inability to adapt - then why do we really *need* them to survive?
So we're not the "reason" for their extinction? Good old human guilt - emotional preservation. It happens - but it better not be *our* fault.
That's a pretty damning commentary on modern "ecological science."‘Mammals missing in the 20th century were nearly three times as likely to be rediscovered as those that disappeared in the 19th century,’ Dr Fisher added.
We stop conservation efforts, believing the species has gone extinct and the species really DOES go extinct.So what's the worst case scenario that's come from believing these animals have been extinct?
Or an actual species *going* extinct quite officially?
Extinction IS a natural part of the life cycle, but we have to recognize that it's a gradual process. Evolution weeds out species that are not fit to survive in favor of stronger species. What we are doing is categorically wiping out whole sections of the chain with little regard for the consequences.I see nothing that's really negative except for emotional aspects or human related issues (dependence for food, etc) - though I do agree that if it's remotely *because* of our activities (hunting, science use, etc) we *should* make strong efforts to avoid it because we're subverting nature.
I consider natural extinction to be part of that life cycle - an intricate part - which is what brings the end to many of these species, it seems. And after considering these species and others that have gone extinct - I don't see where nature has suffered extensively without recovering. (IE: whatever benefit that one species might have brought it simply found in another species.)
True, and the trick is not to confuse the two causes. The Spotted Owl controversy is a case in point: The logging industry in the Pacific Northwest was cut back severely because of claims that the destruction of old-growth forest would wipe out the owls. Now, years later, it turns out that theory was totally off base and the spotted owls do *NOT* require old-growth forest, but they are being eliminated by a more aggressive species of owl coming up from California.Extinction IS a natural part of the life cycle, but we have to recognize that it's a gradual process. Evolution weeds out species that are not fit to survive in favor of stronger species. What we are doing is categorically wiping out whole sections of the chain with little regard for the consequences.
If your criticism is based solely on the fact that ESci doesnt always bat a perfect game, you have a lot to learn about science.True, and the trick is not to confuse the two causes. The Spotted Owl controversy is a case in point: The logging industry in the Pacific Northwest was cut back severely because of claims that the destruction of old-growth forest would wipe out the owls. Now, years later, it turns out that theory was totally off base and the spotted owls do *NOT* require old-growth forest, but they are being eliminated by a more aggressive species of owl coming up from California.
There is a lot more heat than light generated by the so-called "environmental science" which is little more than a convenient vehicle for rabble rousers.
Conservationists are overestimating the number of species that have been driven to extinction, scientists have said.
A study has found that a third of all mammal species declared extinct in the past few centuries have turned up alive and well.
Some of the more reclusive creatures managed to hide from sight for 80 years only to reappear within four years of being officially named extinct in the wild.... The revelations come as the world’s leading conservationists prepare for a major United Nations summit on biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan, next month.
True, and the trick is not to confuse the two causes. The Spotted Owl controversy is a case in point: The logging industry in the Pacific Northwest was cut back severely because of claims that the destruction of old-growth forest would wipe out the owls. Now, years later, it turns out that theory was totally off base and the spotted owls do *NOT* require old-growth forest, but they are being eliminated by a more aggressive species of owl coming up from California.
There is a lot more heat than light generated by the so-called "environmental science" which is little more than a convenient vehicle for rabble rousers.
Or, perhaps, the other 2/3 simply haven't been reported yet. Trying to prove extinction is like trying to prove a negative. Just because you can't find any doesn't mean they are all gone.If one third of "extinct" mammals are rediscovered, then two thirds are accurately described, and gone forever. Is this somehow more acceptable?
Or, perhaps, the other 2/3 simply haven't been reported yet. Trying to prove extinction is like trying to prove a negative. Just because you can't find any doesn't mean they are all gone.
At any rate, the hypothetical threat of "extinction" or other environmental "disaster" (based on the track record to date) is a pretty flimsy foundation for disrupting human lives.
Conservationists are overestimating the number of species that have been driven to extinction, scientists have said.
A study has found that a third of all mammal species declared extinct in the past few centuries have turned up alive and well.
Some of the more reclusive creatures managed to hide from sight for 80 years only to reappear within four years of being officially named extinct in the wild.... The revelations come as the world’s leading conservationists prepare for a major United Nations summit on biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan, next month.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?