In the news

nobody ever caused an extinction out of sheer malice, they always thought it would benefit mankind, or at least their own tribe.

I have to take issue with this particular bit, I agree that nobody has ever caused extinction out of sheer malice, but I don't think they always thought it would benefit anyone else. Many extinctions, or threatened extinctions, such as the black rhino, are caused by want for money, which is motivated either by economic necessity (i.e. not having food to eat) or greed. I don't think they're doing it for the good of mankind I'm afraid.

just save the perty ones

Why do you have an opinion on everything?

Why wouldn't I? Every subject is worthy of my consideration.

I have to take issue with this particular bit, I agree that nobody has ever caused extinction out of sheer malice, but I don't think they always thought it would benefit anyone else. Many extinctions, or threatened extinctions, such as the black rhino, are caused by want for money, which is motivated either by economic necessity (i.e. not having food to eat) or greed. I don't think they're doing it for the good of mankind I'm afraid.

Well, the poachers are doing it so they can eat (in the short term, until the rhinos run out), and the buyers are doing it to make their dick harder (it doesn't work) or whatever, so they are both motivated by more or less legitimate self interest, and most people think their personal interest coincides at least with that of their immediate tribal group members. Of course, they are both wrong, but I deliberately separated motive from effect to draw attention to the foolishness of man.

The various reasons why human populations try to clear their land of varmints and the various ways to make it more economically attractive to leave them be are well rehearsed and don't need reiteration here. There is certainly a pressing need to tackle the ignorance which drives the demands for quackery and bush meat, although in some cases wild animals really do make nice products and delicious meals, so the rational response, without drawing a moral distinction between the competing pleasures of observing live animals and wearing/eating/displaying their products, will be sustainable harvesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk13xygYqQo

In general, no species has a right to exist. Humans wipe out other species out of self-interest; often ill-informed and counter-productive, but nobody ever caused an extinction out of sheer malice, they always thought it would benefit mankind, or at least their own tribe. There is very little hand-wringing when we eliminate a pathogenic organism, yet our state of knowledge is so imperfect that such destruction may be just as harmful to our long term interest as seeing off one large herbivore.

Certainly there seems no need to shed any tears, except out of mawkish sentimentality, over the extinction of one, or even all, Rhinoceros species. The vast majority of humankind exists so far removed from them that their survival or otherwise is of no consequence. The same goes for Giant Pandas; they are a useless species who painted themselves into a corner, and the resources which are wasted on attempting to rescue them from their evolutionary cul-de-sac would be better used elsewhere.

I will admit to mawkish sentimentality about cuddly animals, especially my own pets, but my point was more about the dangers to us, humans, of monoculture, whether of crops or livestock. I don't properly understand the mechanisms of biodiversity, but if many species of large mammals are becoming extinct, and these species generally sit at the top of the ecosysyem pyramids, then this might be, and often is, evidence that biodiversity is decreasing rapidly. Black rhinos might not be of any use to us, but there may well be plants, insects or other, smaller organisms, that are vital to humanity which have also been eradicated with the peak mammal.

Also, 'useless' rhinos and pandas dying out may not be anything to get upset about, but what more useful animal or plant are they being replaced with?

we will have to start eating each other. problem solved

Hippy should last a while. We'll start with him.

He'll last longer if we learn to harvest him sustainably.

He's vicious, and fast. You have to hit him hard and fast.

You will only get one chance, you have to make it count.

MAMILs will last forever if we learn to harvest them sustainably.

Good plan, they even pay with their own money to be rounded up into herds.
#sportive

In general, no species has a right to exist. Humans wipe out other species out of self-interest; often ill-informed and counter-productive, but nobody ever caused an extinction out of sheer malice, they always thought it would benefit mankind, or at least their own tribe. There is very little hand-wringing when we eliminate a pathogenic organism, yet our state of knowledge is so imperfect that such destruction may be just as harmful to our long term interest as seeing off one large herbivore.

Certainly there seems no need to shed any tears, except out of mawkish sentimentality, over the extinction of one, or even all, Rhinoceros species. The vast majority of humankind exists so far removed from them that their survival or otherwise is of no consequence. The same goes for Giant Pandas; they are a useless species who painted themselves into a corner, and the resources which are wasted on attempting to rescue them from their evolutionary cul-de-sac would be better used elsewhere.

What you are trying to describe is the condition of charismatic megafauna. However, you are shortsighted as to the value of this mode of animal in the goals of environmentalism, and to a lesser extent, conservationism.

But A for effort. ;)

Battle of the patronisengers!

you are shortsighted as to the value of this mode of animal in the goals of environmentalism, and to a lesser extent, conservationism.

No, environmentalists an conservationists are short sighted in basing their appeals for support on "charismatic megafauna", since the support will then fall away when these flagship species become extinct, as they inevitably will.

B- for falling for the propaganda :-)

If you look at the world as a whole, you see a bunch of rich countries (Western Europe, North America) who have largely eliminated their "charismatic megafauna", and a bunch of poor countries (most of Africa, parts of Asia) where the people don't know where their next meal is coming from but the wilderness areas are thick with cute critters. If you want to preserve the cute critters, and their supporting ecosystem, you'd be better off persuading the poor South that they can get rich without following the example of the rich North, rather than just relying on a combination of charity and imperialism to get Northerners to pay Southerners to turn their countries into playgrounds for rich tourists. For a start, there simply isn't enough money in the North to pay off all of the South.

If you look at the world as a whole, you see a bunch of rich countries who have largely eliminated their "charismatic megafauna"

Well, we have imported hippy from Australia now, so all is well.

No, environmentalists an conservationists are short sighted in basing their appeals for support on "charismatic megafauna", since the support will then fall away when these flagship species become extinct, as they inevitably will.

B- for falling for the propaganda :-)

If you look at the world as a whole, you see a bunch of rich countries (Western Europe, North America) who have largely eliminated their "charismatic megafauna", and a bunch of poor countries (most of Africa, parts of Asia) where the people don't know where their next meal is coming from but the wilderness areas are thick with cute critters. If you want to preserve the cute critters, and their supporting ecosystem, you'd be better off persuading the poor South that they can get rich without following the example of the rich North, rather than just relying on a combination of charity and imperialism to get Northerners to pay Southerners to turn their countries into playgrounds for rich tourists. For a start, there simply isn't enough money in the North to pay off all of the South.

Agreed that for us in the North, who have entirely pacified & sanitised our landscape, to tell those in the South, who have not yet cut down all of their forests, that the South should stop cutting down forest, and otherwise encroaching onto habitat, is rank hypocrisy.

I don't know how many of the large mammals are lost to food, but in the case of the Asian big cats, the biggest single problem is habitat encroachment, as illustrated by this story:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/tragedy-of-a-cornered-cat-leopard-killed-after-attacking-11-20110721-1hpgz.html

Anyway, my original question was whether or not you were looking forward to world where the pigeon & seagull were king of the sky...

don't know how many of the large mammals are lost to food

..but it's usually the 'wrong' ones.

..but it's usually the 'wrong' ones.

Now you're just trolling.

No, environmentalists an conservationists are short sighted in basing their appeals for support on "charismatic megafauna", since the support will then fall away when these flagship species become extinct, as they inevitably will.

B- for falling for the propaganda :-)

If you look at the world as a whole, you see a bunch of rich countries (Western Europe, North America) who have largely eliminated their "charismatic megafauna", and a bunch of poor countries (most of Africa, parts of Asia) where the people don't know where their next meal is coming from but the wilderness areas are thick with cute critters. If you want to preserve the cute critters, and their supporting ecosystem, you'd be better off persuading the poor South that they can get rich without following the example of the rich North, rather than just relying on a combination of charity and imperialism to get Northerners to pay Southerners to turn their countries into playgrounds for rich tourists. For a start, there simply isn't enough money in the North to pay off all of the South.

Just because an approach isn't as successful as another, doesn't mean it isn't successful at all. Besides, no-one would seriously be able to hypothesize a movement, conservational OR environmental, that wouldn't benefit by somehow appropriating a two-tone bear or a ginger ape at some point. I suppose you could use a pun and say they are both actually very social animals, whether they die out or not.

mdcc_tester, your anthropocentrism is repulsive. You're a real world troll.

mdcc_tester, your anthropocentrism is repulsive. You're a real world troll.

It's quite nasty isn't it?

Now you're just trolling.

No, it was a serious point. There are species which can be sustainably harvested, and there are species which are placed in danger of extinction because their very rarity makes them attractive to the kind of weirdos who think bush meat has special powers.

your anthropocentrism is repulsive

A human being who is not anthropocentric has a severe mental disorder. There are 6.99bn of us not so afflicted, so if you want to artificially extend the survival of some arbitrary species, it is best to find a way to make that eventuality be in the interest of humankind.

Do you (or is there) have any evidence/proof that allowing (there is a choice) animals to be wiped out is either beneficial or detrimental to the survival of our species?