Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist

[JavaScriptDonkey]

You also have to differentiate out the species that go extinct all by themselves. Not everything gets to survive and many that do evolve anyway.

There is no magic number of the correct number of species that there should be in any one given area at any one time.

Some species we actively pursue to extinction, others are cute so we protect them.

[Little John]

Can someone point me to peer-reviewed proof of the '200 species a day' extinction claim?

It might be something to do with this.

Stop the world, I wanna get off

[SleeperService]

Can someone point me to peer-reviewed proof of the '200 species a day' extinction claim?

It might be something to do with this.

Stop the world, I wanna get off

You and me both Steve...

[Catweazle]

You also have to differentiate out the species that go extinct all by themselves. Not everything gets to survive and many that do evolve anyway.

There is no magic number of the correct number of species that there should be in any one given area at any one time.

Some species we actively pursue to extinction, others are cute so we protect them.

All true.

I admit I'm not entirely clear as to why we should work so hard to protect species like Pandas which are clearly evolutionary failures. Ultimately all life on Earth will be extinct, the planet has been barren before and it will again, we are only postponing the demise of some species for our own vanity or entertainment.

I can see a benefit to protecting bees, for example, but is a tree frog going to make a difference ?

[Little John]

You also have to differentiate out the species that go extinct all by themselves. Not everything gets to survive and many that do evolve anyway.

There is no magic number of the correct number of species that there should be in any one given area at any one time.

Some species we actively pursue to extinction, others are cute so we protect them.

All true.

I admit I'm not entirely clear as to why we should work so hard to protect species like Pandas which are clearly evolutionary failures. Ultimately all life on Earth will be extinct, the planet has been barren before and it will again, we are only postponing the demise of some species for our own vanity or entertainment.

I can see a benefit to protecting bees, for example, but is a tree frog going to make a difference ?

This would all be fine if organisms existed in ecological isolation or, even, merely had straightforwardly identifiable relationships with their ecosystem. But that isn't how it works. Even the most seemingly inconsequential organism can be a part of an unbelievably tortuous and indirect ecological set of relationships that are incredibly difficult to unpick. On that basis, the cautionary principle should always take precedence over a laissez faire one when it comes to deciding which ones are important and which ones are not.

A good example demonstrating this principle is the one involving the Brazil nut-tree.

Please take a look at the following documentary about 38 minutes onwards for details. Though, I would recommend watching it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYwAZnDSr10

[emordnilap]

You also have to differentiate out the species that go extinct all by themselves.

The current species extinction rate is estimated to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural or ‘background’ rate.

[RevdTess]

I can see a benefit to protecting bees, for example, but is a tree frog going to make a difference ?

Tree frogs might help the fight against cancer...

http://www.empowher.com/cancer/content/ ... eat-cancer
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/lumen/issues ... 16387.html

etc.

[emordnilap]

One species going extinct due to natural or evolutionary causes may well not matter.

That's not a problem, though.