Dude, that's so rock and roll!
Dolphin extinct, Star Trek IV inevitable?
- Thread starter The Laughing Vulcan
- Start date
I thought it was humpback whales that would make TVH inevitable... But it is sad that a species of dolphin has gone extinct.
Sorry, I couldn't resist stirring up a little trouble in this thread. 
Of course it's depressing to hear that a species has apparently gone extinct. And of course mankind can play a part in the extinction of a species. But, at the same time, I think it's also important to keep things in perspective.
First, as has already been pointed out, we have thought species were extinct before only to have them turn up later. Although I'm sure the scientists involved were very thorough in their search, it's still only a search of one isolated area over a short period of time. They could still be out there. Second, it's unrealistic to assume that species will not come and go from this planet. They have done so since the beginning of the planet, long before humans had anything to do with it.
Should we do what we reasonably can to protect species? Of course. But should we feel guilty for our modern, industrialized civilization or assume that we're headed for the ruination of the planet because a particular species of dolphin has ceased to exist? No, I think not.
Of course it's depressing to hear that a species has apparently gone extinct. And of course mankind can play a part in the extinction of a species. But, at the same time, I think it's also important to keep things in perspective.First, as has already been pointed out, we have thought species were extinct before only to have them turn up later. Although I'm sure the scientists involved were very thorough in their search, it's still only a search of one isolated area over a short period of time. They could still be out there. Second, it's unrealistic to assume that species will not come and go from this planet. They have done so since the beginning of the planet, long before humans had anything to do with it.
Should we do what we reasonably can to protect species? Of course. But should we feel guilty for our modern, industrialized civilization or assume that we're headed for the ruination of the planet because a particular species of dolphin has ceased to exist? No, I think not.
Also, just out of curiosity...
...How exactly have we come to the conclusion that the extinctions in the modern age are exceptional in the history of the planet?
I mean, determining extinction rate would at the minimum seem to require knowing how many species are in existence at a given time, right? How do we possess this knowledge from any era other than the modern one? Typically, we know only a handful of species extant at any given geological era, with just a faint guess of how many percent of the day's whole they are supposed to represent.
I really want to understand this better. From where I'm currently looking, the claim "extinction levels are at an all-time high" is as unsupportable as the claim "men think of sex every seven seconds", because I can see no plausible method of researching for and reaching this conclusion.
Timo Saloniemi
...How exactly have we come to the conclusion that the extinctions in the modern age are exceptional in the history of the planet?
I mean, determining extinction rate would at the minimum seem to require knowing how many species are in existence at a given time, right? How do we possess this knowledge from any era other than the modern one? Typically, we know only a handful of species extant at any given geological era, with just a faint guess of how many percent of the day's whole they are supposed to represent.
I really want to understand this better. From where I'm currently looking, the claim "extinction levels are at an all-time high" is as unsupportable as the claim "men think of sex every seven seconds", because I can see no plausible method of researching for and reaching this conclusion.
Timo Saloniemi
The claim that extinctions are 'at an all time high' is unsupportable, but it is clear that once commone species have declined by as much as 95% in some cases and that these declines are directly attributable to human activity.
When those declines are replicated in the majority of species in a previously stable eco-system then there is cause for concern, as much as if the 'all time high' case were proven.
When those declines are replicated in the majority of species in a previously stable eco-system then there is cause for concern, as much as if the 'all time high' case were proven.
Huntingdon and Timo: By that logic, how do scientists claim there were ever mass extinctions of species in earth's history?
I don’t know why everyone postulates that man’s treatment of the planet is somehow “unnatural”. It might be wrong, per say, but it’s not unnatural. Humans sitting at the top of the food chain manipulating elements into combinations that do not arise naturally is no different than a bird breaking off a twig and sticking it in a hole to get at an insect. Did the twig break it self off? No. But we consider that act natural, as opposed to combining certain metals into aluminum and blasting them off into space.
The planet will adjust to our doings as it adjusts to anything that happens. This may be good or very bad for us, but it will adjust. If a large meteor hits the Earth and wipes us all out, this will be just as natural as us setting off all our nuclear bombs and doing the same thing. Why, because we are part of the planet and in terms of nature, us using atomic weapons on each other is no different or unnatural than that bird using a twig to get the insect.
So, if we manage to wipe ourselves out, the Earth will still be here. It’s just there will be no humans around to watch Star Trek 25 or cook dolphins for supper.
The planet will adjust to our doings as it adjusts to anything that happens. This may be good or very bad for us, but it will adjust. If a large meteor hits the Earth and wipes us all out, this will be just as natural as us setting off all our nuclear bombs and doing the same thing. Why, because we are part of the planet and in terms of nature, us using atomic weapons on each other is no different or unnatural than that bird using a twig to get the insect.
So, if we manage to wipe ourselves out, the Earth will still be here. It’s just there will be no humans around to watch Star Trek 25 or cook dolphins for supper.
^ Exactly. Many in the environmental movement often overlook the fact that humans are not a force against nature, we are a part of nature. We are just as much a part of nature as any other creature.
Simply because we have developed to a point where we can exert dominance over other species and modify our environment to suit our needs does not remove us from being a part of nature. Whether you believe we were put here by God or ascended to our current state through evolution, we are still in our present position as a part of nature, not as a foil to it.
Simply because we have developed to a point where we can exert dominance over other species and modify our environment to suit our needs does not remove us from being a part of nature. Whether you believe we were put here by God or ascended to our current state through evolution, we are still in our present position as a part of nature, not as a foil to it.
A supernova could wipe out all life on earth if it were to blow near-by. It too is a part of nature but hardly a consummation devoutly to be wished. We may be a part of nature but we are a part of nature which knows better.
Whatever we do to this planet, it will heal. In time--millions, tens of millions, hundereds of millions of years from now. But the world we leave for our own progeny in the next 50, 100, 1000 years will be an ugly, hydrocarbon choked wasteland with little natural wonder left and less drinking water. That is, if we keep going as we've gone.
Of course, in time, our own sun will go boom and all life will cease so, in the end, I guess it all evens out.
Whatever we do to this planet, it will heal. In time--millions, tens of millions, hundereds of millions of years from now. But the world we leave for our own progeny in the next 50, 100, 1000 years will be an ugly, hydrocarbon choked wasteland with little natural wonder left and less drinking water. That is, if we keep going as we've gone.
Of course, in time, our own sun will go boom and all life will cease so, in the end, I guess it all evens out.
Yes, that is what I would like to know.
I mean, it's pretty obvious how one first comes to suspect a mass extinction: an interesting species is observed in strata from A to B, but no longer past B into C, and then another interesting species is also noted to disappear at the B/C boundary. All it takes is those two species, after which new evidence will be gathered to support the hypothesis of something sudden and untoward happening at that juncture.
But this only tells something about the fate of "stable" species that had been present for several dozen million years before the event. If younger species die out at the boundary, or elsewhere, we can't tell whether they are part of a mass extinction effected by "outside forces", or simply unfit to live on this planet to begin with. Alternately, they may be established species whose time is past.
If something as new as recent species of mammals or birds cease to exist here and there across the planet, we can't really tell that such things haven't been happening continually for the past billion years. The fossil record would tell us little or nothing about the comings and goings of such brief candles.
If something as fundamental as frogs or sharks start dying out, then something is afoot. But it could be that the time of amphibians has finally come to an end, now that the climate is fluctuating madly in a cycle of ice ages and hot interglacials. Who are we to interfere?
As for what is natural... Apart from major sterilizing phenomena like supernovae, this planet has undergone many disasters that are selective killers. Volcanic activity results in ends very similar to man-made pollution. Tectonic movements do what air travel does, only infinitely more slowly; changes in currents act faster, comparably to sea travel, in propagating alien species to faraway shores.
In light of this, I have relatively strong faith in Earth's ability to adapt to technological species. I have less faith in said species' ability to manage a viable ecosystem if they work from the basis of trying to maintain status quo.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
