Slashdot Mirror
White Dolphin Functionally Extict
An anonymous reader writes "For the first time in nearly fifty years another mammal, specifically an aquatic mammal, has gone extinct. In this case, it was the white dolphin, also known as the Baiji, which used to live in the Yangtze River in China. The dolphin had been known to exist for the last 20 million years."
Hindsight in 20-20 indeed. Maybe now governments will get the idea that if you want to protect a species, you actually have to protect it. Just sitting arond and holding press conferences and askind advisors endlessly will not solve a single thing. This crap needs to change, and soon.
.-.
Where did you learn Math? Verizon? Anyway, we should care because we are directly responsible for their extinction, not mother nature.
Jonathanjk.com
Makes me feel bad about the tuna sandwiches I had for dinner last night.
While many ocean dolphins do get killed by tuna nets, the species that went extinct was a river dolphin, unique to the Yangtze. They were done in by the increasing pollution of that river. So instead of feeling bad about the tuna sandwiches you had you should feel bad about the cheap DVD player you bought -- not only did the people who put it together get paid slave wages, but the company that employed them didn't "waste" any money on pollution control.
Because this extinction can be directly traced to human interference. Because the animal was part of an ecosystem that has now been diminished, and human interference therefore harmed the entire ecosystem. Because diminished ecosystems are less resistant to new predators and diseases. Because diminished ecosystems have a point of no return at which they completely collapse, even if other species are still present.
Most importantly though, because the planet just got a little less interesting and wondrous.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
It is heartbreaking.
In the end it doesn't matter if your political views are left or right. Extinction is threatening a great multitude of species and sooner or later you will be affected negatively. Regardless of who you are or how you define affected.
"No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture." - Learned Hand
Human action, alas, has little to do with natural selection.
Were it not for that fact, you would be right.
Oh, wait... you wouldn't be right even then.
Without competition, there is less need for adaption; freeing up resources (I can hardly imagine what kind, really) has nothing to do with someone "fit" becoming "fitter".
"Fitness" you speak of is so arbitrary and dependent on a plethora of outside factors that what can be considered "fit" today may well become "completely unfit" tomorrow. Or today, but in a different climate.
Ignore this signature. By order.
I agree. In the book he gives a poiniant description of the environment of the Baiji. Due to heavy traffic the river itself contains constant mechanical noise. For a creature that uses sonar to see and move life in white noise is blindness. He compared it sleshwere eloquently to spending your life in a snowstorm able to see but seeing nothing.
As much as people may want to celebrate this, or at least gloat, about the weak dying off and this being part of the "natural cycle" I say that's just a bit sick and way too short sighted.
I'm an environmentalist for many reasons chief among them is that I'm selfish. No matter how much we may like to hide in our offices we depend, completely depend, upon the life on the earth around us. Between Dolphins dying in the Yangtse, to the sheer number of ocean species that will die as the ice retreats the web we depend on is, strand by strand, being cut. Sitting around and saying "I told you so" to each other will do no good. Either we all (all animals) survive or we don't but resorting to simple stories gets us nowhere.
Humans are natural, hence they are part of natural selection. This false dichotomy between nature and man is, frankly, just so much hippie bullshit.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Considering the other article is about a fossil of a mammal found, it's more like...
deadmammals++;
livingmammals--;
deadmammals++;
20 Million Years.
Repeat after me: Twenty Million Years
Yeah, they just happened to have been naturally selected for extinction now, nevermind that we KNOW exactly what the cause of their decline has been, and that we KNOW it is because of OUR artificial impact on their natural environment.
You couldn't have picked a worse place or time to pull that steaming pile of shit out.
No Comment.
Well, they should've evolved some mutant powers to cut through those fishing nets.
Lasers, probably.
Or maybe it's a proof of the intelligent design... they'd survived for 20 million years only to get killed by fishing nets.
Some god or other probably intended that; we can never see the Grand Plan ourselves anyway. Mysterious Ways of God's(TM) or something.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Huh? Humans are animals. Animals killing off other animals is the quintessential example of natural selection.
Furthermore, natural selection doesn't care about what's "natural" or not. Bears, fishing boats, or meteors - it's all just 'death'.
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
yes very correct. But in the grand scheme of things, we're more likely to be classified as a 'parasite' on the planet since 'modern' civilizations haven't been able to live in harmony with the environment we occupy.
*Successful* parasites don't kill the host...we on the other hand are doing are best to kill the earth, our 'host'.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Well, mind you Jensen partially fulfills Premise Ten himself (that is, the first statement). Trade shipping contributing to an extinction of a species is hardly "an urge to destroy life" manifesting. Honestly if there is reason to lament it does not deserve to be lost in some overarching and baseless criticism of the human condition.
I like basketball!!1!
yes, 99.9% of all species have gone extinct before mankind came around. but it matters when a creature goes extinct not because of meteors, or climate change, or volcanoes, or what not
but because of us
it's about responsibility and accountability. us humans are powerful enough now that we are responsible for this globe. we have have our hand on the global thermostat, we have our hands around the necks of thousands of species. and we can do pretty much whatever we want to
hear that?: we can do pretty much whatever we want to
and some of us choose to actually care about what we do to this globe
i know you don't care, but the fact that you don't care does not move those of us who do care
and our agenda and our concerns will not be blocked or pushed around by the likes of you
if you had an agenda of your own, that would be another thing. we could bargain
but you don't have an agenda. you just don't care what meltdowns or is choked on trash or is paved over with a parking lot. you simply don't care
fine. hurray for you
but don't assume that therefore your opinion matters to those of us who do care about the fate of our ecosystems
you simply don't matter. you are inert. you are a loud ignorant voice
and you are ignored
but keep up with the trolling anyways, everyone needs comic relief
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What makes you think that we homo sapiens fall into the "fittest" category in this case?
What makes you think we've got a better shot at making "the cut" than trees, grass, rats, corn, ants, plankton, robins, mushrooms, or (the perennial favorite) cockroaches?
If your answer is "because we're intelligent", ask yourself why the dolphins died out before the insects in this particular area. For as awesome as we are, we're not nearly as well-equipped to battle extinction by environment change as we'd like to think.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Sometimes stuff dies.
/. where software monoculture is almost universally agreed is a Bad Thing(r).
y Id=6299480
Marginalizing an important issue like biodiversity is fun isn't it?
This is
It stands to reason a biologic monoculture carries with it even more dire consequences than software. Our best interests are served to ensure there are as many species as possible walking/crawling/swimming around.
Let me give you an example. Bees. The American commercial bee population is a monoculture. In California the central valley bee population has been decimated by a disease that the bee keepers can no longer control. Guess what? No tree nut harvest. How about the other plants that bees pollinate? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor
Now, what happens when it's cows or corn? Rice? Wheat? Please re-examine this belief carefully and mod parent down.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
OK, so it's natural selection.
The problem is this: We can pick our actions. We cannot pick their consequences.
Anyone who thinks humans can't have an impact on the environment have their heads so far up their butts that the lump in their throat is their nose.
Our actions or lack of actions do have consequences, and we do have to live with those consequences.
I have no idea what the consequence of this species being lost will be, but I guarantee there will be consequences, and doubt very highly that they will be positive and produce a net gain in the world.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
The difference between man and the "natural world" is poetic, not scientific. It is a romantic view, and it is irrational. We view nature as everything other than what we have created. Whenever we talk about nature, it is usually associated with the good and man is associated with the bad. However, when speaking of a scientific phenomenon such as natural selection it is stupid to separate man and nature. We are part of the ecosystem just like every other animal. The "destruction of nature" IMO is only dangerous as far as it affects us. The world is a cruel and harsh place, with or without humans. Extinction happens. Life on Earth was here long before we emerged, and it will be here long after we are gone.
oh yea, and what's natural is good right? Like rape and murder? Thanks dr.Morality, you have staightened me right out!
Survival of the fittest FTW!
I have to give credit where credit is due, though. The stupidity of all the organizations - from Greenpeace to the Chinese Government - that could have made a difference but chose not to make a difference that mattered is not the mundane stupidity we see in everyday life. This is a highly trained, highly refined breed of stupidity that only the truly gifted hand-wringer could develop.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If ALL selection were natural selection, there wouldn't be any point in coining the term 'natural selection' instead you would use the word 'selection'.
Well, the "natural" part of "natural selection" is supposed to mean that it isn't purposefully chosen. It's meant to run parallel but contrast with the breeding of animals for specific purposes.
Sorry, it was a vein attempt at a firstpost and all I could think of on short notice. Feel free to mod it into the abyss.
So if we're going to feel bad about something, feel bad that some Chinese kid had food to eat and could go places.
It wasn't really the post itself, it's that it was modded up to the top of the pile so fast and considering what the article is about, I find that sad.
I find it even more sad that people would view this opinion as being a troll.
There is simply nothing amusing about the extinction of a species, but considering how most of the ensuing discussions have gone, I really shouldn't be remotely surprised.
The average IQ around here may be higher than most places, but it sure doesn't equate to higher morality. (Now that could be legitimately called a troll, though it is true)
No Comment.
TFA calls the Baiji "functionally extinct" and "effectively extinct" is there some sort of "non-functioning extinction" or "ineffective extinction"? They're either extinct, or not extinct (with a possible "believed to be extinct" and maybe even "extinct in the wild") why must people muddy things up with unnecessary qualifiers that add nothing to the facts?
If people didn't make inappropriate jokes, the Internet wouldn't be what it is.
nothing
As for this issue, let's stick to morality, since this is a moral issue.
Um, just to clarify a few things, please lay out your moral framework, as it relates to which living creatures it's OK to kill, and by what means. If it's a moral issue, that should be very simple for you to describe, since surely you're not basing that notion on any mixed premises or anything.
Are you a vegan? And if so, what steps are you taking to make sure that a particular sub-species of earthworm that lives only in a little valley where thin, pale-looking organic farmers use ox-drawn iron-age plows to greenly raise the plants from which your Thanksgiving tofurkey was molded are all cut to ribbons in the process? You could be partly responsible for wormicide.
Or, do your moral considerations vary as a function of animal cuteness or whether or not it was portrayed as good or evil in Narnia?
I hate to see anything extinct, and wish that Giant Cave Bears still existed to eat granola-crunching naturalists that talk to trees on a first name basis, but you'd better be careful about the distinction between "dumb" and "immoral." Because once you cast the damage or support done to/for a particular species in moral terms, you're into some deep water. That is, if you have any intellectual honesty whatsoever.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
by your same logic, if i murder you, it's a natural act
so therefore, i should not be held accountable, right?
accountability and responsibility: what do those concepts mean to you?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Nature is what it is - it is not possible to be outside of it. More correct might be to say "nature as it would exist in the absence of human beings." "humanities selective proclivities" ARE merely part of nature, in the strict sense.
Nature doesn't "care" about anything in any sense - the only rule of the game is survival. The best surviver survives, and if the conditions change its adapt or die. Very simple.
Human adapted well, and we run the show now. If something evolves to take us out, then it is a more effective survivor than we are. Etc. etc. etc. Diversity is not valued in nature except in that it helps promote survival.
Our emotions have nothing to do with nature as a system. It is what it is, period. No feelings, just existance and survival. Anything else is viewing it in a false light.
What we DO want to ask is can we make better use of the diversity in nature to educate and help ourselves, or perhaps avoid shooting our environment in its metaphorical foot. Sentimental attachment to nature for its own sake completely misses the point of nature, which is first, last and only survival. If we like something we can try to preserve it, but then it is no longer a survivor except by our whim, which is not safe.
Caution is appropriate in situations where the consequences are severe and difficult to reverse, but that is still rational self interest on the part of human beings. Since short term survival trumps everything, nature-apart-from-man is doomed (indeed its probably already gone except maybe in the deep oceans.)
I say we focus on those instead of crying over what is essentially a sad but unimportant story.
Did it occur to you that bee monoculture was a problem until you read that story? Yeah, me neither. See that's the problem. If we could tell which species and ecosystems were important to protect, I'd be right behind you: "pay attention to the ones that matter, and who gives a fuck about the rest?!?!"
But the problem is, we don't know what the hell we're doing. We don't know what species are important, what environmental variables do what, and we generally don't find out until things have gotten out of hand and shit like entire species have been destroyed. You can find innumerable examples where a seemingly insignificant change in an environment caused some fairly significant and harmful cascade.
Because we don't understand exactly how ecosystems work yet, we're limited to leaving them mostly alone and keeping them the way they are, because as every programmer knows, getting excited and trying to fiddle with a system you don't understand frequently leads to a crash. And unlike on a computer, we can't just reboot the planet.
Try pulling the stick out of your ass before you go judging others.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
buzzkills with a diminished sense of humor, like yourself.
damaged by dogma
OK, I'm going to call this for bullshit. I don't agree that joking about a dolphin's extinction is a sign of morality or immorality. The fact that someone made a wisecrack about it here doesn't mean that he is immoral. Joking about something is morally neutral. Nobody and no thing is harmed by that joke being made about the dolphin's extinction.
It's just a smokescreen to deflect guilt. Making others feel guilty about cracking a joke is just a way to feel less bad about our own roles in the extinction of a species. "No Single Drop Believes it is Responsible for the Flood". We're all to blame for this, and it shows what fucking rotten stewards of this planet we have been.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Are you implying that I should feel bad about buying something that creates a job in a part of the world that desperately needs them? What is a slave wage to you may be a godsend to the worker. To quote Sowell: "The real minimum wage is zero [unemployment]."
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
*Successful* parasites don't kill the host...we on the other hand are doing are best to kill the earth, our 'host'.
I have yet to see a parasite anywhere that gives a rats ass about its host. For that matter, I've never seen any animal care about its effect on the environment. So, say what you will about man, but we are the only species on the planet that cares for other species (pets, PETA, conservation organizations and so on), recognizes its own impact on the environment and tries to do something about it (futile or not). So before you go "man-bashing", tell me of any other creature anywhere that would take a single step to save another species from extinction.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
believed to have existed...
First you assume that the readership of Slashdot consists of 'geeks,' and secondly that 'geeks' do not engage in 'knee-jerk' responses. I see no reason to think that either assumption is true, and further that 'geek' is such a nebulous concept in the popular vernacular as to be essentially meaningless. You'll notice that anyone with a hobby refers to himself as a 'geek' since the later '90s. From people that play video games to people that watch movies, everyone is a 'geek.' Even more importantly, the people that post to Slashdot are not particularly impressive specimens intellectually, and I see ample evidence every day that 'knee-jerking' is precisely what is done in these parts. You're lucky if people even read past the headline before making comments.
I figure that we could handle environmental changes far better than most species. First of all, we have considerable intelligence and tools that extend our "natural" adaptability. Second, how many other animals can thrive on 6 of the 7 continents (or all 7 if you let people use tools)? Third, we can eat a fairly varied diet, so our survival isn't dependent on any specific prey. Fourth, our population is enormous compared to the minimum number needed to sustain the species (i.e. not enter an extinction spiral/cascade). If 5 billion of us were to instantly just fall over dead, the human species still wouldn't be threatened with extinction. Of course, a significant climate change probably would kill a bunch of people, and make life kinda suck for the survivors, so it's in our best interest to prevent that from happening. Extinction is probably impossible for humans unless we do something really dumb, like ignite the atmosphere or create some super virus.
I honestly must say I don't give a rats ass if somebody loses his/her job now because we have to protect a unique species from going extinct. Sheesh, 20 million years of succesful living as a species, and now you're dead because of someone who lives for, say, 60 years. Sad. We are indeed a pathetic species.
The species which is closest to colonizing space is the fittest. We are the only species with a space program. We are the fittest.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Your overreaction is certainly amusing.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
>The problem with fishing was not limited to overfishing - >there are plenty of fish upriver of the dam. The problem >was that the Chinese saw no point in allowing the dolphins >and the fish to be in the same stretch of river.
Plentiful "fish upriver of the dam" is a myth. Do you know how big the Three Rivers dam is and the amount of urban and industrial pollution that continues in its proximity, upstream and downstream?
>The Chinese could - very easily - have moved the dolphins upriver of the dam, getting them out of the way of boats, pollution, etc. The decision not to do so had nothing to do with capability, money, resources, fish, pollution, or any other such problem. The decision not to was based on apathy.
Nothing's free. Transport of dolphins and cetaceans is more difficult then it sounds. The dolphins first have to be tranquilized, I believe. Then the dolphin movers use a special cloth harness, straps and suspension mechanism to keep their weight evenly distributed. You sound like a racist saying it's none of the above reasons but apathy.
>The environmentalists were equally capable of moving the dolphins.
It takes money fool.
Nothing valuable-as-money, that is true, but there are other things than money.
There is intrinsic value in all living things, and while I'm no flaming hippy, who values individual fuzzy things more than people, I think that the careless extermination of an entire species, for no better reason than that the Chinese can't be bothered to not exterminate it, is a bad thing.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
By tasty animals, I'm guessing you're talking about the various varieties of bland, factory-farmed livestock. There's just a small problem with that called biodiversity. When you have a monoculture of a certain crop or livestock, all it takes is one plague to wipe them out all around the world.
The only animals that matter are the cow, the pig, and the chicken. They'll never go extinct from environmental factors because we humans have taken over their care and feeding (and eating.)
There may be a moral argument for keeping a species from extinction, but there's usually a financial argument for killing just one more. Every time a poacher kills an Elephant, his family gets to eat, or he gets to buy a new car. There will always be people for which finance trumps morals. The rain forests aren't being cleared because people hate trees, it's because they need more room for cows, pigs, and chickens.
Personally, I'm sad to see another species go extinct, but in reality, it will have no impact on my life that there are no more white dolphins in China.
I, for one, welcome our new natural overlords. I would certainly advocate razing (and recycling the steel) when these buildings wear out and replacing them with earthen buildings. Also wooden buildings should also be supplanted with earthen ones when their time is up. Cob and adobe last way longer, takes way less energy to create the materials (straw, sand and clay) and won't be destroyed by california's wildfires, and if built with a concrete pad in the foundation will also stand up to earthquakes. And I could quit my bullshit cubicle job and go be a cobber or adobe builder. Everybody wins!
Jon
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
This is un-natural selection. Big difference.
Every time a land developer gets told they can't build something on land that they paid for because it's habitat of some obscure and largely irrelevant species, that's costing someone tons of money, the burden of which is borne by a few individuals. IMHO, that burden should be shared by all. If land is declared unbuildable because of endangered species laws, it should be mandatory that the government purchase that land at fair market value. In that way, everyone pays their fair share instead of a few people getting screwed.
I say this as someone about to buy property in California, desperately terrified that I'll be told halfway through the project that they found some species I've never heard of and I'll lose every penny I have. And therein lies the flip side of the argument. Everything has its price, and that price when viewed in abstract terms (100 less jobs) seems small until you see it in more concrete terms (40 people are now homeless because they can't afford a roof over their heads). The key is balance.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The name itself, "natural selection", is somewhat misleading. Natural selection does not imply lack of human intervention. On the contrary, humans are part of, influence, are influenced by, and are subject to natural selection and evolution. Therefore, you are wrong to think that natural selection is only such if we stand aside and let nature do its will. That is the fallacy of the Social Darwinist as Divine Right Theorist: Success must take intervention and attempts of change into account in order for it to be truly objective.
Sorry, I went on a limb there, didn't I?
My new blog
And to those who would claim that human life is more precious than animal life... why?
These are some example questions. Assume you're on vacation far away and none of this causes you any direct physical harm. Now the questions:
- Say there's going to be a huge tragedy and someone's family is going to die. If you could chose whether your family dies or someone other family dies, which would you choose?
- Say there's going to be a huge accident and a whole town or city is going to be destroyed (comet, bomb, whatever)? Do you want it to be the town where you live, or some other town?
- Say there's going to be a plague and a whole nation is going to die from it. It will be everyone who speaks a particular language. Do you want it to be your people, or some others?
Are you getting it yet? It's pretty obvious. Everyone else understands the point implicitly -- all the rational ones anyway. It's OK if you're not. Be insane all you want. Just stop recruiting.
"Face it, humans are just animals, and their lives are no more important (other than in the thoughts of their friends/relatives) than the lives of animals."
Important to whom ? Lives of humans are more important *to humans* than the lives of other animals. It is simply because they are human and hence we have higher empathy towards humans than animals. If this is embodied in religion or law (killing another human is far greater crime than killing an animal), it must simply because of the higher empathy we feel towards humans.
Python script to convert photos into "artsy" portraits: http://p2pbridge.sf.net/pyPortrait/
What's the "fair market value" of the land that you can't build on?
XML causes global warming.
What's the "fair market value" of a unique species? What's the replacement cost?
And it sounds like you're mostly afraid of getting financially burned by the "unknown", which is a reasonable concern. So, do the obvious fix: do an environmental impact study, including a field study of the flora and fauna, *BEFORE* you put up your money to buy the land, so that you *know* it isn't an issue. Think of it as insurance. You probably wouldn't think twice about a home inspection before buying it. Why not a "land inspection"? Especially in California, such an inspection can cover multiple risks and protect you from being hung out to dry because you bought a piece of land with a geological hazard on it that wasn't obvious either -- landslides are *really* common in California, for example, and have ruined alot of poorly-planned developments and killed unsuspecting residents, EVEN when there were warning signs preceding the deadly events.
Basically, don't get financially ruined (or worse) by the unknown. This is not rocket science. Some risks can be mitigated by a bit of study, and if that takes a bit of money and time, it is worth it if you are spending hundreds or thousands of times more on the land itself, and your financial neck is on the line. Make the risks known.