Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Remember When Elephants Had Tusks?

Posted by jamie on from the selection dept.

Boing Boing links to an interesting story today. If an antibiotic kills 95% of a germ species, but 5% bear a gene for resistance, indiscriminate use of it will result in a surviving line of entirely resistant germs. But on a slightly larger scale, genetically tusk-free elephants are gaining ground relative to their tusked brethren, says one study, thanks to a nasty antibiotic called poaching. If elephants don't have the decency to go extinct, maybe they'll just hang around to tusklessly remind our grandchildren where billiard balls originally came from, and to invite us to ponder what the last poacher was thinking as he shot the last tusked elephant.

7 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting... by quark101 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While the bacteria example has been around for a very long time and is commonly known, it is not very often that the same trend is extrapolated to the larger, more relavent world.

    What we have to ask ourselves though, is, are we doing this to any other animals as well? Forcing evolution, as it could be called? What will be the long term effects? Tuskless elephants is one thing, but there could potentially be something very dangerous coming, besides super bacteria, of course.

    1. Re:Interesting... by TheSloth2001ca · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This same phenomenon has been observed in lakes where extensive sport fishing takes place. Since either by regulations or due to the angler's behaviour the larger fish seem to have the most fishing pressure applied to them. Over time the abundance of large fish decline, and remain low even after many years where not fishing is permitted on the lake. What happens is those fish with the genetic disposition to grow very large have a much lower success rate when it comes to mating, and there fore the genes that allow fish to grow large become increasingly rare.

      --
      Just another crappy blog
    2. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I wouldn't call it "forcing evolution".

      However, it definitely happens in other areas. In Pennsylvania for instance, the hunting of Turkeys by making a fake gobbling sound so that they respond to you as they come closer, has gone on for so long that in some areas male turkeys don't respond to the call -- if anything, they will silently sneak up on a female call, but that's it.

      Some selection for traits can also be observed in areas where people "trophy hunt", selecting deer to kill based on the size of the antlers instead of taking at random for food.

  2. Realities Priorities by kenp2002 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The fact that actions like this occur is more then likely based on immediate circumstances rather then a long drawn out through process. If I am staving and I find some apples the fact that I could take the apples and plant the seeds and have even more apples is more then likely going to be eclipsed by my immediate need to eat and the real necessity to hunt and gather NOW rather then farm LATER. Concerning the last tree, they may have cut it down for the immediate need of getting a fishing boat in order to eat NOW rather then the fact that there are no more trees to build boats LATER. In modern society, added with a touch of greed and self absorbtion, you get people who satisfy their needs (real or perceived) NOW rather then their kids needs LATER. Look at how many retire in their old age, no planning for LATER.

    Nothing suprising here... move along...

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    1. Re:Realities Priorities by haggar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My simple objection is that poachers are not starving. They are members of organized crime gangs, often so powerful to be able to challenge the state institutions themselves. Poaching is a sistematic process, and it's very "well" tought out: the reason why poachers don't plan for the future (i.e. why they poach all they can and to hell sustainability) is because poaching gangs are compiting against each other. It's a destructive logic, and it makes me revolt, but it's logic.

      --
      Sigged!
  3. Economic solution: Ownership by jgardn · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If the Chinese could own elephant herds, this wouldn't be a problem. The owners would make sure that the elephants would grow appropriately and profitably. They would make sure that the beneficial attributes of the elephants would never disappear.

    Instead, today no one can own the Chinese elephants. And even if you do own them, you can't harvest the ivory in the tusks and sell them in a legitimate market. And because China is a communist society, sustainable profits are actively discouraged. Since no one owns the elephants, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable.

    Take, for instance, the massive herds of cattle owned across the world. Cattle have developed a neat trait to ensure their continued survival: They have the most valuable meat of all animals that are domesticated, and they do most of the work themselves. This makes cattle valuable to their owners, and ensures that each cow is going to see a long, healthy life, followed by a quick "harvesting". Cattle will never go extinct as long as they produce the tasty meat we so love and crave, and as long as people are allowed to own cattle and exploit them.

    The link to the Easter Island story is extremely relevant. The Easter Island people didn't have a sense of ownership of the trees. I don't know what they were thinking, and I don't think their descendents have a good clue either, but I can tell you that if they viewed the forest as an investment, and the things the forest produced as a valuable commodity that could be owned and bartered for, then the forest would still be there. I guess that somehow their society lost these basic rules and devolved into a free-for-all as people tried to provide for themselves in an increasingly barbaric society.

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
  4. Re:This one is bound to cause controversy by SEE · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Farming qua farming doesn't work so well with elephants, but South Africa already has a program where limited culls for ivory are allowed to those who set aside part of their land for elephants and other wildlife. Zimbabwe had a similar program, but with the recent wave of land seizures the system there has broken down. Kenya is strongly opposed, arguing that poached ivory would be laundered through legal ivory stocks.