Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sad bit of news but the last of the Javan Rhino in Veitnam have gone extinct thanks to poachers heres more info here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/science-environment-15430787

Very sad to here

Yeah, that is pretty sad.

The real bummer is that there are people that really don't care that they are possibly killing the last animal of that type on the planet. Sure, they might not know that, but they have to know that at least that there aren't a lot of these rhinos running around.

Monster Rain wrote:The real bummer is that there are people that really don't care that they are possibly killing the last animal of that type on the planet.

Why does it matter that the animal is extinct?

I suppose it doesn't matter, in the grand scheme of things.

That doesn't really have any bearing on me thinking it's a shame that another species is gone from the face of the earth. I'm still pissed off about there not being any dinosaurs.

It matters because it was not an extinction caused by natural selection. It was man made. We did the same thing to the Dodo, Yangztee River Dolphin and countless others. If the Dinosaurs got wiped out for being fairly harmless and only killing what they needed too to survive, what chance do we have?

Plus, no more Javan Rhinos means plenty of Chinese business men will remain impotent.

biccat wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:The real bummer is that there are people that really don't care that they are possibly killing the last animal of that type on the planet.

Why does it matter that the animal is extinct?

Domino Effect. Without the Rhino, something will grow wildly, and the thing that feeds off that will grow wildy, etc etc.

Basically, it feths up the Ecosystem.

Chowderhead wrote:Domino Effect. Without the Rhino, something will grow wildly, and the thing that feeds off that will grow wildy, etc etc.

Basically, it feths up the Ecosystem.

Did the ecosystem get "fethed up" when the thylacine (1936) went extinct? Lord Howe Long-eared Bat (1996)? The Pyrenean Ibex (2000)? Smallpox?

While it's possible that sudden extinctions (i.e. killing all of the horses in the central plains) could have disastrous effects, the gradual extinction of species has a history of not totally fething up the ecosystem.

biccat wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:Domino Effect. Without the Rhino, something will grow wildly, and the thing that feeds off that will grow wildy, etc etc.

Basically, it feths up the Ecosystem.

Did the ecosystem get "fethed up" when the thylacine (1936) went extinct? Lord Howe Long-eared Bat (1996)? The Pyrenean Ibex (2000)? Smallpox?

While it's possible that sudden extinctions (i.e. killing all of the horses in the central plains) could have disastrous effects, the gradual extinction of species has a history of not totally fething up the ecosystem.

It doesn't take 80 years. It takes thousands, possibly even millions. We won't see any immediate effects, so we're fine. Out future population may be feeling some sort of problems.

Chowderhead wrote:While it's possible that sudden extinctions (i.e. killing all of the horses in the central plains) could have disastrous effects, the gradual extinction of species has a history of not totally fething up the ecosystem.
It doesn't take 80 years. It takes thousands, possibly even millions. We won't see any immediate effects, so we're fine. Out future population may be feeling some sort of problems.

Short sightedness? In my human race? It's more likely than you think!

Chowderhead wrote:It doesn't take 80 years. It takes thousands, possibly even millions. We won't see any immediate effects, so we're fine. Out future population may be feeling some sort of problems.

I dispute that it's possible to know or even measure the ecological impact of species extinction over the span of thousands or millions of years. Maybe one of these rhinoceros populations would have spawned the next bubonic plague and wiped out 50% of the human population.

biccat wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:It doesn't take 80 years. It takes thousands, possibly even millions. We won't see any immediate effects, so we're fine. Out future population may be feeling some sort of problems.

I dispute that it's possible to know or even measure the ecological impact of species extinction over the span of thousands or millions of years. Maybe one of these rhinoceros populations would have spawned the next bubonic plague and wiped out 50% of the human population.

Possibly. But that would help with the growing population issue, as horrible as it sounds.

We can't tell for certain, but we can make pretty good guesses.

Chowderhead wrote:

biccat wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:It doesn't take 80 years. It takes thousands, possibly even millions. We won't see any immediate effects, so we're fine. Out future population may be feeling some sort of problems.

I dispute that it's possible to know or even measure the ecological impact of species extinction over the span of thousands or millions of years. Maybe one of these rhinoceros populations would have spawned the next bubonic plague and wiped out 50% of the human population.

Possibly. But that would help with the growing population issue, as horrible as it sounds.

OK.

Well, I take the position that human life is preferable to rhino life. Your preferences may differ. But you've still failed to make the case that the extinction of a species is a bad thing.

biccat wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:It doesn't take 80 years. It takes thousands, possibly even millions. We won't see any immediate effects, so we're fine. Out future population may be feeling some sort of problems.

I dispute that it's possible to know or even measure the ecological impact of species extinction over the span of thousands or millions of years. Maybe one of these rhinoceros populations would have spawned the next bubonic plague and wiped out 50% of the human population.

The ecological impacts of extinctions or rarity can be seen in months, not thousands of years. Just look at any major endangered fishery environment or the effects of rising acidity or growing deadzones in crustacean populations and the ensuing impact on the predator species that rely on them. The effects are easily measured in the ocean because of the quick, dynamic and widespread impact extinctions have there.

biccat wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

biccat wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:It doesn't take 80 years. It takes thousands, possibly even millions. We won't see any immediate effects, so we're fine. Out future population may be feeling some sort of problems.

I dispute that it's possible to know or even measure the ecological impact of species extinction over the span of thousands or millions of years. Maybe one of these rhinoceros populations would have spawned the next bubonic plague and wiped out 50% of the human population.

Possibly. But that would help with the growing population issue, as horrible as it sounds.

OK.

Well, I take the position that human life is preferable to rhino life. Your preferences may differ. But you've still failed to make the case that the extinction of a species is a bad thing.

Let's say the Wolf population of the arctic tundra was to take a dramatic decline. Rabbit populations would then skyrocket, causing a massive feeding frenzy upon the scrub brush of the area. This would cause a massive chain reaction of huge booms and busts in the Arctic, eventually leading to a entire ecosystem collapse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

biccat wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:It doesn't take 80 years. It takes thousands, possibly even millions. We won't see any immediate effects, so we're fine. Out future population may be feeling some sort of problems.

I dispute that it's possible to know or even measure the ecological impact of species extinction over the span of thousands or millions of years. Maybe one of these rhinoceros populations would have spawned the next bubonic plague and wiped out 50% of the human population.

The ecological impacts of extinctions or rarity can be seen in months, not thousands of years. Just look at any major endangered fishery environment or the effects of rising acidity or growing deadzones in crustacean populations and the ensuing impact on the predator species that rely on them.

Not in all cases, Shuma. Not in all cases.

biccat wrote:
Well, I take the position that human life is preferable to rhino life. Your preferences may differ. But you've still failed to make the case that the extinction of a species is a bad thing.

Tell that to the Rhino.

warspawned wrote:

biccat wrote:
Well, I take the position that human life is preferable to rhino life. Your preferences may differ. But you've still failed to make the case that the extinction of a species is a bad thing.

Tell that to the Rhino.

It makes no difference to the Rhino if he dies and his species lives on or if he dies and his species is extinct.

Well, apart from the lack of inter vivos hot rhino lovin'.

Not in all cases, Shuma. Not in all cases.

Due to the limited scope of our ability to observe, not because the impacts don't exist. To discount the changes one would have to discount the concept of cause and effect itself. The death of a large agrarian mammal can have significant run on effects to local flora which are incredibly hard to measure in an environment like Vietnam with such weak institutions for measurement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

biccat wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:It doesn't take 80 years. It takes thousands, possibly even millions. We won't see any immediate effects, so we're fine. Out future population may be feeling some sort of problems.

I dispute that it's possible to know or even measure the ecological impact of species extinction over the span of thousands or millions of years. Maybe one of these rhinoceros populations would have spawned the next bubonic plague and wiped out 50% of the human population.

Possibly. But that would help with the growing population issue, as horrible as it sounds.

OK.

Well, I take the position that human life is preferable to rhino life. Your preferences may differ. But you've still failed to make the case that the extinction of a species is a bad thing.

Good and bad are moralistic concepts, deceased biodiversity increases the rampancy of diseases and greatly increases the likelyhood of a systematic collapse in an ecosystem. Both of those are very 'bad' things for humans as that decreases the likelihood of individual and species survival.

Also, judging from previous postings you're certainly willing to throw humans under the bus. Why is it so different now when it involves an animal instead of some sort of bizarre market concept or a national border?

I see everything as perspective, but I label this extinction 'bad'


I agree with Chowder wholeheartedly.

for instance, if the rhino had a symbiotic relationship (somehow) with the Cone Snail, then the Cone snail would falter, if it died out, then oh look, many of our medicines are now extinct with it.

ShumaGorath wrote:Good and bad are moralistic concepts, deceased biodiversity increases the rampancy of diseases and greatly increases the likelyhood of a systematic collapse in an ecosystem. Both of those are very 'bad' things for humans as that decreases the likelihood of individual and species survival.

Can you show that a single extinction event decreased biodiversity to the extent that diseases became rampant or there was a systematic collapse in an ecosystem?

There seems to be a lot of "ifs" and "maybes" involved with the defense that a single species extinction is necessarily bad. The objective evidence, on the other hand, is lacking.

Personal insults, as always, omitted from quote.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:It matters because it was not an extinction caused by natural selection. It was man made. We did the same thing to the Dodo, Yangztee River Dolphin and countless others. If the Dinosaurs got wiped out for being fairly harmless and only killing what they needed too to survive, what chance do we have?

Plus, no more Javan Rhinos means plenty of Chinese business men will remain impotent.

Thats still natural selection. We selected them out.

Other species: cockroaches, vultures, ants, foxes, squirrels (wiener dogs tell me they are evil EVIL!!!), rats, grackles, and air rats (pigeons) have adapted and are the new animal overlords.

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Good and bad are moralistic concepts, deceased biodiversity increases the rampancy of diseases and greatly increases the likelyhood of a systematic collapse in an ecosystem. Both of those are very 'bad' things for humans as that decreases the likelihood of individual and species survival.

Can you show that a single extinction event decreased biodiversity to the extent that diseases became rampant or there was a systematic collapse in an ecosystem?

There seems to be a lot of "ifs" and "maybes" involved with the defense that a single species extinction is necessarily bad. The objective evidence, on the other hand, is lacking.

Personal insults, as always, omitted from quote.

http://ckwri.tamuk.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/PHOTOS/Deer-Research_Program/Class_files/Deer_impacts_annurev.ecolsys.pdf

Any overabundance of deer can be solved quickly by a pickup truck full of bubbas with 30-06s or alternatively
a pack of wolves and a game plan.

Frazzled wrote:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:It matters because it was not an extinction caused by natural selection. It was man made. We did the same thing to the Dodo, Yangztee River Dolphin and countless others. If the Dinosaurs got wiped out for being fairly harmless and only killing what they needed too to survive, what chance do we have?

Plus, no more Javan Rhinos means plenty of Chinese business men will remain impotent.

Thats still natural selection. We selected them out.

Other species: cockroaches, vultures, ants, foxes, squirrels (wiener dogs tell me they are evil EVIL!!!), rats, grackles, and air rats (pigeons) have adapted and are the new animal overlords.

Vultures ants and foxes are most definitely not thriving at pre civilization levels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Any overabundance of deer can be solved quickly by a pickup truck full of bubbas with 30-06s or alternatively
a pack of wolves and a game plan.

Interesting how game laws aren't actually solving the problem though. It'll take a lot more then sunday hunting.

ShumaGorath wrote:

biccat wrote:
Can you show that a single extinction event decreased biodiversity to the extent that diseases became rampant or there was a systematic collapse in an ecosystem?

http://ckwri.tamuk.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/PHOTOS/Deer-Research_Program/Class_files/Deer_impacts_annurev.ecolsys.pdf

"Overexploitation in the second half of the nineteenth century led to major declines in deer numbers and range. Subsequent protection of deer via restricted seasons and game laws then led to rapid population increases across Europe and North America over the past 75 to 150 years"

"Deer populations in North America have grown rapidly since the 1960s to 1970s in response to changes in their environment and reduction of hunting pressure"

If you're trying to make the case that government interference with a resource artificially distorts that resource, welcome to the club. I also suggest you look up "tragedy of the commons." There's a reason why cows and pigs aren't endangered.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:It matters because it was not an extinction caused by natural selection. It was man made. We did the same thing to the Dodo, Yangztee River Dolphin and countless others. If the Dinosaurs got wiped out for being fairly harmless and only killing what they needed too to survive, what chance do we have?

Plus, no more Javan Rhinos means plenty of Chinese business men will remain impotent.

Thats still natural selection. We selected them out.

Other species: cockroaches, vultures, ants, foxes, squirrels (wiener dogs tell me they are evil EVIL!!!), rats, grackles, and air rats (pigeons) have adapted and are the new animal overlords.

Vultures ants and foxes are most definitely not thriving at pre civilization levels.
Pics or it didn't happen.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Any overabundance of deer can be solved quickly by a pickup truck full of bubbas with 30-06s or alternatively
a pack of wolves and a game plan.

Interesting how game laws aren't actually solving the problem though. It'll take a lot more then sunday hunting.

Thats because game laws restrict the amount of hunting. I guess you're not familiar with what game laws are.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:It matters because it was not an extinction caused by natural selection. It was man made. We did the same thing to the Dodo, Yangztee River Dolphin and countless others. If the Dinosaurs got wiped out for being fairly harmless and only killing what they needed too to survive, what chance do we have?

Plus, no more Javan Rhinos means plenty of Chinese business men will remain impotent.

Thats still natural selection. We selected them out.

Other species: cockroaches, vultures, ants, foxes, squirrels (wiener dogs tell me they are evil EVIL!!!), rats, grackles, and air rats (pigeons) have adapted and are the new animal overlords.

Vultures ants and foxes are most definitely not thriving at pre civilization levels.
Pics or it didn't happen.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Any overabundance of deer can be solved quickly by a pickup truck full of bubbas with 30-06s or alternatively
a pack of wolves and a game plan.

Interesting how game laws aren't actually solving the problem though. It'll take a lot more then sunday hunting.

Thats because game laws restrict the amount of hunting. I guess you're not familiar with what game laws are.

I live in maine. I'm a bit better acquainted with the concept of deer hunting then you (go hunt buzzards, texan). I'm aware of both the laws and the concept of culling and neither strongly impact the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

biccat wrote:
Can you show that a single extinction event decreased biodiversity to the extent that diseases became rampant or there was a systematic collapse in an ecosystem?

http://ckwri.tamuk.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/PHOTOS/Deer-Research_Program/Class_files/Deer_impacts_annurev.ecolsys.pdf

"Overexploitation in the second half of the nineteenth century led to major declines in deer numbers and range. Subsequent protection of deer via restricted seasons and game laws then led to rapid population increases across Europe and North America over the past 75 to 150 years"

"Deer populations in North America have grown rapidly since the 1960s to 1970s in response to changes in their environment and reduction of hunting pressure"

If you're trying to make the case that government interference with a resource artificially distorts that resource, welcome to the club. I also suggest you look up "tragedy of the commons." There's a reason why cows and pigs aren't endangered.

I was commenting more on the fact that we've effectively wiped out all natural predators for deer and that governmental control has proven innefectual as it often does. If you want to draw a line in the sand and say it was somehow always a problem and that government is failing rather then looking at the actual environment itself (and the document in full) then this won't be much of a conversation. We created a situation through unnatural selection that we are now seemingly incapable of dealing with.

It directly supports the idea that extinctions decrease biodiversity (which a simple logic test does as a number minus a number is less then the original).

ShumaGorath wrote:I live in maine. I'm a bit better acquainted with the concept of deer hunting then you (go hunt buzzards, texan). I'm aware of both the laws and the concept of culling and neither strongly impact the issue.

You should read this article. It points out how hunting laws have affected deer populations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:It directly supports the idea that extinctions decrease biodiversity (which a simple logic test does as a number minus a number is less then the original).

And yet you still haven't established that more biodiversity is an objective good.

Wait Maine has wildlife? You hunt? You even know which end of a rifle to point away from you?

How are you be more knowledgeable about deer hunting than I again? As there are deer behind both my houses, and as I've had kin who hunted to eat you're how shall we say "full of it."

You should read this article. It points out how hunting laws have affected deer populations.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/406158.page#3489805

You should read what I said and research the term 'culling'.

And yet you still haven't established that more biodiversity is an objective good.

The third section of that article is about diseases. Read past the first page please.

Deer transmit infectious agents directly to other deer, to livestock, and to humans, especially if deer density is high. Bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) causes mortality in deer, livestock, other wildlife species, and humans (Schmitt
et al. 1997). M. bovis affects deer populations of New Zealand and Europe to various degrees (Clifton-Hadley & Wilesmith 1991). It has been rare in North America,
but incidence could increase as deer densities increase (Schmitt et al. 1997). A recent outbreak in Michigan led to concern that it would spread to domestic cattle
and to a ban on deer feeding (Miller et al. 2003).

The deer population has exploded due to unnatural selection causing a lack of biodiversity in the pradator species in north America. This is leading to significant issues in maintaining biodiversity in the flora of the continent because they're eating it all. They're also spreading diseases and are vulnerable to a mass dieoff due to their own lack of biodiversity and dense populations. This has direct effects on human logging (as an example industry), health, and safety.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Wait Maine has wildlife? You hunt? You even know which end of a rifle to point away from you?

How are you be more knowledgeable about deer hunting than I again? As there are deer behind both my houses, and as I've had kin who hunted to eat you're how shall we say "full of it."

I lived in a six square mile island with a deer population in the thousands for three years. I've hit them on my bike. It's a pedal bike.

That doesn't mean you're a hunter. It just means the deer there are dumb.