Have we done extinction?

[Garden_Chris]

I don't mean the following as justification, but to perhaps illustrate the other side of the story.

For example, if tigers suddenly became adaptable to any climate on earth, with the ability to produce hundreds of babies in a matter of days and travel great distances (I'm thinking over 1000 miles in a week) swimming oceans, etcetera - suddenly people would start to feel a little less inclined towards saving them. Mainly because they pose a threat to our species. Now, I know that the above is a little exaggerated - but slow it down a bit (less babies, less distance, less adaptability) - yet still give them an 'boost' in respect to those terms and you'd quickly see adverts change from "Save the Tiger" to Tiger deterrent adverts.

If the tiger were capable of such thoughts, would he (or she) exercise a moral decision to save humans? Or would we be viewed as a lovely pink sausage?

Morality is something we all differ on. Occasionally our views line up, sometimes they collide. As such, I believe, despite the fantastic efforts to save critically endangered species, they're going the way of the Dodo irrespective of human intervention. Our greed (i.e. poachers/kill for clothing/kill for food/etc.) for our own self-continuation is greater than our selflessness.

I think future generations will look back on us with an attitude of "Bah, wasn't there anything you guys could have done to save x/y/z animal? I'd' have loved to have seen one (sadly, and most probably) in a zoo".

[veggiechicken]

To most of us the cute and furry creatures have a special charm - why else would the WWF promote them. But what about the insects that are also becoming extinct. They are all part of the great chain that links us all and enables us to survive. However, one is never asked to sponsor an insect (and this is not meant as a joke folks!). Diseases in bees have alerted people to how essential they are for pollinating food crops. Even the detested slugs and snails have their role to play. Should we not protect every living creature, no matter how small, as it may have a place in the chain that, as yet, we are not aware of.

[taff]

we're a bit thick really. We focus on saving an animal rather than doing something about big business and corporations or superstitions that cause the death of the animal in the first place.

[SlugLobber]

... finding more ways to make profit

(ie, by burning rainforest to make palm oil plantations or fodder for burger cattle)

You forgot clearing forest to make soya plantations. The so-called 'greener' alternative...

[Snadger]

To most of us the cute and furry creatures have a special charm - why else would the WWF promote them. But what about the insects that are also becoming extinct. They are all part of the great chain that links us all and enables us to survive. However, one is never asked to sponsor an insect (and this is not meant as a joke folks!). Diseases in bees have alerted people to how essential they are for pollinating food crops. Even the detested slugs and snails have their role to play. Should we not protect every living creature, no matter how small, as it may have a place in the chain that, as yet, we are not aware of.

Problem is........in the war between us and other animals to control habitats on the planet, the human animal invariably comes out on top and creates a habitat to suit ourselves and not the rest of the animal kingdom!

[Hilary B]

If the human population carries on growing at the rates predicted, we will eventually run out of room for ANYTHING we can't make use of.
The only way to save the planet (and its non-human inhabitants) is to curb the human population AND curb human greed.
It's not only the very well off (who are not as numerous as one might imagine). There are plenty of very poor people in the USA, but they still use ON AVERAGE about 10 times as much of the planet's resources as those in India (who are not the lowest on this scale), so how much is being used by those who are neither poor nor exceptionally rich?

[Thelma Sanders]

Things do go extinct without us having anything to do with it, it's just the normal course of evolution.....not everything is our fault. Genetic changes happen over time which cause animal species to fail.

We may be speeding up climate change now, but there have been rapid climate changes, and earth shifts, which were nothing to do with mankind, which also caused mass extinctions............or, we may be on the way to causing our own

[DGoulston]

I remember a documentary one time, where a flying bug would lay eggs inside a beetle, then treat the beetle as a king, helping it get food and have a good life, so that the flying things babies could eat the beetle from the inside when they hatched.

I like that. Its kinda like the food chain (survival of the fittest) with a sarcastic side!

[hamamelis]

To most of us the cute and furry creatures have a special charm - why else would the WWF promote them. But what about the insects that are also becoming extinct. They are all part of the great chain that links us all and enables us to survive. However, one is never asked to sponsor an insect (and this is not meant as a joke folks!). Diseases in bees have alerted people to how essential they are for pollinating food crops. Even the detested slugs and snails have their role to play. Should we not protect every living creature, no matter how small, as it may have a place in the chain that, as yet, we are not aware of.

Actually- thought they don't get the publicity of the BFTs (big fluffy things) there are quite a few breeding programs and protection schemes aimed at small invertebrates- my parents recently got involved in a scheme to rear and release endangered British fen raft spiders, and there's at least one breeding scheme protecting snail species going on- look up Partula tree snails.

I know compared to the millions of species of insect and other tiny critters out there, it's pretty small beans, but there certainly are people dedicating time and money to them as well (sometimes using some of the money raised by publicising the aforementioned BFTs).

Also, protecting big dramatic species' habitats also protects it for anything else that lives there- so you pay for one tiger, you get 40 deer, 200 small mammals, 250 birds and millions of insects absolutely free!

[veggiechicken]

"Also, protecting big dramatic species' habitats also protects it for anything else that lives there- so you pay for one tiger, you get 40 deer, 200 small mammals, 250 birds and millions of insects absolutely free!"

That's a much better offer than BOGOF and very reassuring to know.

[Thelma Sanders]

so you pay for one tiger, you get 40 deer, 200 small mammals, 250 birds and millions of insects absolutely free!

The tiger has to eat something, after all LOL

[cardiffsteve]

The question was "Have We Done Extinction?"

I would say "Yes,To Death!"

[Mikey]

I remember watching a programme a while ago about how developed the amazon rainforest used to be, it was far more of a metropolis than we might believe. They had discovered large areas where the soil structure differed in composition to that around it, demonstrating permanent habitation on quite a grand scale. I think they used some kind of satellite mapping to discover these areas. I can only remember the vague outline of the programme.

[Two_Sheds]

You forgot clearing forest to make soya plantations. The so-called 'greener' alternative...

Yep, that too

[Glutton4...]

I believe the White Rhino is now considered extinct, which is sad (or was it the Black Rhino - my radio reception was cr*p at the time! )

If we could choose a species to become extinct - I'm afraid I choose Wasps. Yes they're beautiful, and can be useful - but I'm allergic. I'm allergic to Bees too, but I like them.

Hypocrite!? Me!? Yup!