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."

57 of 868 comments (clear)

  1. Oops! by justkarl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Makes me feel bad about the tuna sandwiches I had for dinner last night.

    1. Re:Oops! by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Funny

      Rest assured that all your future tuna sandwiches will be White Dolphin free.

    2. Re:Oops! by J.R.+Random · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Oops! by Knara · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to TFA, it wasn't pollution, but rather overfishing and shipping traffic that did them in.

    4. Re:Oops! by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't feel too bad, it was bound to happen. This species required constant reassurance or it would die, and it was sexually attracted to fire.

    5. Re:Oops! by severoon · · Score: 3, Funny

      You only think this way because you're not looking hard enough to find out how it's our fault. It's hard to believe it's nearly 2007 and people like you still haven't figured out that every ecological problem in the world is our fault. Or, more specifically, yours and mine. Oh, you say you just wanted to sit down and enjoy an episode of Battlestar Galactica on DVD? Well thanks for wrecking the Amazon and feeding radium to starving Indian children you fascist! You just bought your girlfriend a dozen roses? Oh how nice. Did you realize those roses were shipped in a vehicle that burned fuel from the Middle East that funds oil sheiks that funded terrorism that killed my neighbors grandmother in Israel? Real nice, you Nazi. I hope your girlfriend thinks those flowers were worth having a poor old woman's head stomped in. If it sounds like I'm not making sense, I'm sure if you RTFA it'll all come together. Well, I mean, I didn't read it, but how could it not support my point?

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    6. Re:Oops! by derubergeek · · Score: 4, Funny

      not only did the people who put it together get paid slave wages...

      Man. Think how much cheaper our stuff from China would be if those silly Chinese stopped paying wages to their slaves. Sounds like they need an efficiency expert - or at least a dictionary.

      You think the two Bob's would be available?

      --
      Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the /. bean counters might report.
    7. Re:Oops! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So if we're going to feel bad about something, feel bad that some Chinese kid had food to eat and could go places.

    8. Re:Oops! by Nasajin · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've just contacted the associate professor in cetacean research at my local university, and asked specifically what the cause of the dolphin's extinction is. Apparently, the extinction is a combination of "pollution from industry, habitat loss due to damming, and incidental catch [i.e. fishing]". His words, not mine. I'd hope that he has a bit more knowledge about the issue than the journalists at CNN do.

    9. Re:Oops! by siufish · · Score: 5, Informative

      From their website:

      The decline of the Baiji and the critical situation of the finless porpoise appears to not be directly influenced by the water quality of the Yangtze. Within the framework of the Expedition, scientists from the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology did simultaneously investigate the chemical composition of the Yangtze river water and its particulate load. Scientists took both water and sediment samples from 30 different locations all along 1750 kilometers of the river. Although the Yangtze does have an altogether high degree of pollutant build-up, at this time, as Beat Mueller from Eawag pointed out, there are no indications of toxic pollutants in high concentrations.

      (Emphasis mine.)

      Here is some information on the staff at the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology.

      Not to discount your source, but I'd hope that they have a bit more knowledge about the issue than your associate professor.

      And please, /.ers, stop knee-jerking. That's not what geeks do.

    10. Re:Oops! by Keebler71 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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,...

      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
    11. Re:Oops! by operagost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sheesh, 20 million years of succesful living as a species, and now you're dead because of someone who lives for, say, 60 years.
      Wow, isn't that a heavily weighted argument. Can't really make a single individual's lifespan stand against the entire existence of a species. For your next act, I hope you will advocate razing all steel-framed buildings in favor of adobe huts because steel buildings last, say, 60 years, while adobe huts have been build for thousands.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:Oops! by DeathElk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is un-natural selection. Big difference.

    13. Re:Oops! by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    14. Re:Oops! by noamsml · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I can believe that a rock is falling onto my head, but it doesn't keep me from avoiding it. The simple fact that evolution and natural selection are integral parts of life does not mean that a sentient being cannot defy the drive to survive or extinguish competing species. In fact, such sentient decisions are also part of natural selection.

      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?

    15. Re:Oops! by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  2. Overloards by pseudorand · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, for one, morn the loss of our potential aquatic overlords.

    1. Re:Overloards by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't see how you can make wild assumptions about the morality of the /. user-base from observing many people who obviously have a different sense of humor than you do making jokes. Its called grave humor and it applies to anything sad. Does this suck? YES. Big time. But making a joke about it does not lessen the seriousness of it, it just lets us have a much needed chuckle.

      Try pulling the stick out of your ass before you go judging others.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  3. I just have one question! by Eros · · Score: 4, Funny

    How did they taste?

    1. Re:I just have one question! by tuxette · · Score: 4, Funny

      How did they taste? Like tuna...

      --
      People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
  4. Idiots. by Fayn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    .-.
  5. Re:I can only say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't kid yourself. If a white dolphin ever got the chance he'd eat you and everyone you care about.

  6. Ironic Article Timing by adavies42 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I know they're not really equivalent, but it's still funny to see this right above "New Zealand's First Land Mammal Discovered".

    --
    Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
    -kfg
    1. Re:Ironic Article Timing by Whalou · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except that the "+1" mammal from New Zealand in that equation has been dead for 16 million years.

      --
      English is not this .sig mother tongue...
  7. heartbreaking by nomadic · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Douglas Adams had a chapter on the efforts to save the baiji in
    • Last Chance to See
    , which is really an amazing book for those of you who haven't read it. The sadness of this situation will no doubt be marred by countless slashdot posts by the rabid anti-environmental right who tend to post on these sorts of stories.
  8. Re:really... by danpsmith · · Score: 4, Funny
    Its just a way for eco-freaks to start yelling that we are killing the earth as they drive off in their new Hummer as they go for a friendly Sunday drive to observe nature.

    That's not true...We take the Lexus to the environmental rally on Sundays, Saturday is Hummer day.

    --
    Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
  9. 20 million years seems like a pretty good run by steak · · Score: 4, Funny

    it sucks that they're gone, but times change and evolution is cruel mistress. they should have grown opposable thumbs 20000 years ago and stopped our ancestors from inventing the plow then maybe they would have stood a chance.

  10. So long by wiredog · · Score: 3, Funny

    and thanks for all the fish!

  11. '60s TV reference alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They called him Fripper, Fripper ...

  12. Re:Why do we care all that much? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  13. Re:Why do we care all that much? by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 5, Funny
    More than 995% of all zoological diversity, in total, ever, is extinct. Why do we need to sweat it


    Because maybe one of those extinct species was good at statistics.
    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
  14. Cataloguing DNA for future use by ReverendLoki · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My question is, is anyone preserving DNA samples from the existing specimens? Maybe another 20 years it will be feasible to produce clones of the species. I'm not saying try and repopulate the species into the wild, though that could be an option, but rather perhaps just for preservation in a zoo or similar habitat. Whether or not this actually happens in the future, we'd need to start thinking about gathering and preserving the DNA samples now. If we hurry, it may not even be too late to come up with 20 to 25 unique sets to match the number the article suggests is the minimum number of dolphins needed to even hope for a resurgence of the species.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:Cataloguing DNA for future use by sadr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Saving the DNA might be useful, but for many mammals and birds, there's much more to behavior than just DNA.

      While it is not as dramatic as aliens saving human DNA without any of our culture, many animals don't function well if they don't have their parents (or other members of their species) to teach them how to survive.

      Combine it with needing the rest of their habitat, and it is almost meaningless to talk about trying to "preserve" the species that way.

    2. Re:Cataloguing DNA for future use by TheCodeFoundry · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is the intent of the http://www.all-species.org/ ALL Species Foundation.

      Their mission is to "The ALL Species Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to the complete inventory of all species of life on Earth within the next 25 years - a human generation."

      A Wired article http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,50942, 00.html/ about them has some interesting information.

  15. Douglass Adams by shrapnull · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Chinese river dolphins (of both the pink and white variety) are covered in a lesser-known but extremely good book by Douglas Adams called "Last Chance to See", which covers a variety of endangered species.

    I love how the publicity for the dolphins led to a media circus that resulted in them actually being considered a delicacy in the area.

    Choice quotes from the book here: Douglas Adams: Last Chance to See Quotes

    --
    If you're half as beautiful naked, you'd be 4 times as beautiful with twice as many clothes on.
  16. I agree. by Irvu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  17. Huh by locokamil · · Score: 3, Funny

    Find one (nouveau New Zealand mammal), lose one (Chinese White Dolphin). It evens out, no? :: Goes and votes Republican ::

    I kid, I kid.

  18. Re:Why do we care all that much? by Zaatxe · · Score: 5, Funny

    "First they came for the white dolphin, but I didn't say a word because I'm not a white dolphin..."

    --
    So say we all
  19. Re:I can only say... by GeckoX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  20. Charlie Tuna mourns by El_Smack · · Score: 4, Funny

    I /thought/ my tuna sandwich tasted different today.

    --


    There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
  21. I won't believe it until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I won't believe the white dolphins are dying until Netcraft confirms it.

  22. Re: Embraceable Monoculture by mpapet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sometimes stuff dies.
    Marginalizing an important issue like biodiversity is fun isn't it?

    This is /. where software monoculture is almost universally agreed is a Bad Thing(r).

    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?story Id=6299480

    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
  23. Re:I can only say... by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Tornados, floods, deer ticks with lyme disease, falling rocks, little globulous things you can't even see, all of it trying its damndest to kill you every day you exist.

    And yet the only species in the entire world that gives a damn about preserving other species is human beings.

  24. Re:I can only say... by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  25. Re:really... by MagicM · · Score: 4, Funny

    Saturday is Hummer day.

    I wish.

    Oh, you meant the car. Sorry.

  26. Re:I can only say... by bogjobber · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  27. Re:I can only say... by vertinox · · Score: 4, Funny

    20 Million Years.

    Well that was plenty of enough time to evolve into something that can develop an industrial civilization and subjugate all other sentient beings.

    If they didn't want to go extinct they could have spent all that time developing their own space program and left.

    Or nuclear weapons depending if they were not in a "good mood" kind of species.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  28. Very skilled idiots. by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful
    • The dolphin was officially down to 6 or less a decade ago.
    • It was featured in Douglas Adams' "Last Chance To See" as critically endangered sometime before that.
    • The two that the Chinese had in captivity died due to neglect and the use of exactly the kind of netting that have been killing them along the river for containment.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • The environmentalists were equally capable of moving the dolphins. The politicians could hardly have stopped them - even if they wanted to. And why would they have wanted to? It would have gotten rid of the problem, would have allowed them to claim credit if the solution worked, and would have cost them nothing if it had failed.
    • Environmentalists were equally capable of relocating the dolphins. There's so much boat traffic and so much illegal fishing, who would have noticed the Rainbow Warrior flooding a compartment and stuffing a few dolphins in it? The dolphins need a fresh water river and there's not exactly a world shortage of those.
    • And the marine parks around the world? They could have charged a small fortune to exhibit a river dolphin, run a captive breeding program and got their name in lights for saving an entire species. So what do they do? Uh.... Nothing?
    • Gene banks and cloning groups? Silent. No efforts on saving the genetic data for later generations, no efforts by geneticists to produce a clone, not even an effort to map the genes to see what made them what they were. (Wheat you can find next year. Humans will be around for a loong time. But the plants and animals that you get one chance at and that's it?)


    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)
  29. Well that sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's the dolphin bits that give tuna that great taste.

  30. Damn! by danpsmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    The bubble-era vision of a Utopian ocean is dented and dirty...The white dolphin has collided with the olive tree, and its crumpled hulk spins in a ditch as the orchard smolders.

    --
    Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
  31. Still time to save the finless by MrCopilot · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From the expidition website:

    Alongside the search for the Baiji, the scientists surveyed also the population of the endemic Yangtze Finless Porpoise, and the total was less than 400. The situation of the finless propoise is just like that of the baiji 20 years ago, sais Wang Ding, deputy director of the Institute of Hydrobiology Wuhan. Their numbers are declining at an alarming rate. If we do not act soon they will become a second Baiji, said Wang Ding, deputy director of the Institute of Hydrobiology of the Chinese Academy of Science in Wuhan

    http://www.baiji.org/expeditions/1/overview.html

    --
    OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
  32. Re:I can only say... by Keebler71 · · Score: 4, Funny
    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.

    Agent Smith? Is that you?

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  33. Re:I can only say... by izomiac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  34. Re:How are your nice morality-safe leather shoes? by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Um, just to clarify things, people who hunt are sadists.

    Never met one. Every hunter I know goes to a lot of trouble to make sure that the animals they eat - which live in the wild and pretty much never die of old age - meet a rather instantaneous end. Do you eat fish? When was the last time you saw to it that your salmon had a nice peaceful death, or a completely abrupt one? Hooking or netting a fish is a painful, panicky thing, just like capturing crabs, or running cattle into a chute for slaughter. I take very seriously my opportunity and responsibility to take wild game in an ethical manner.

    I also participate in keeping the eastern seaboard whitetail deer population under control. Since the natural predators are gone from suburbia, and such developments create ideal deer habitat, you wind up with many times the population of deer that were present even 300 years ago. When poor weather happens, or during the rut, you get vast number of these animals moving across highways or gathering in unnatually large herds. The result is painful (and sometimes drawn-out) death by injury from a vehicle, or very high rates of disease transmission from over crowding. People who want deer to live like that are sadists (to use your word). People who take the role that wolves used to play (in keeping the herds properly thinned out) not only are doing the species a service, but are also putting into their freezers some very healthy, lean meat that isn't soaked in steroids and anti-biotics, and which didn't involve huge farming operations (which burn tons of fuel and drench the soil with fertalizers) to raise and transport. While performing this little service, we (hunters) also pay large sums of money into state coffers, and support all sorts of wildlife conservation programs. Hunters do more to ensure the long term viability of wildlife (from ducks to deer to foxes and wild turkey) than most any other group.

    Since you so obviously want everyone to know that you are a sadist you must be even more deranged than the average hunter.

    Says the anonymous coward.

    I'm more than happy to tell people where the holiday meal they're eating came from. In my family, it's nice pheasant appetizers followed by a really good venison roast. All taken by me, in the field, while on my two feet. While I'm at it, I pick up trash, dispose of old abandoned barbwire, report poachers to the game wardens, tell farmers what I've seen on their back 40, and reduce - by at least a few meals - the demand for factory farming and all of the waste that goes with it.

    So, since you're a vegetarian, tell me everything you know about how the soybean farmers you buy from don't ever shoot the varmits that dig holes in their crop sections. Tell me how they tuck each groundhog and jackrabbit into bed every night. Do you sleep better at night knowing that the farmers you deal with use special combines that are guaranteed not to slowly crush voles, mice, and other small mammals as they drive over those animals' home turf? Oops! I forgot. That's simply not true, is it? Tell me what you know about the "organic" operations that, none the less, still practice ditch-to-ditch farming, thus reducing the very habitat that would provide homes for grouse or quail. You know, nature's little pest-bug patrol. In fact, tell me what you know about any of this whatsoever, since your previous comment would imply that you're an ignorant fool that thinks all food is produced by extracting it from rainbows, and delivered by My Little Pony to your grocery store. Hunters aren't sadists. But people who eat meat and wear leather without every personally doing the work of producing it are: cowards (and usually shrill, hypocritical asses, as well).

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  35. Top Of the Food Chain, Ma! by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny
    Species die out all the time. It's not that uncommon and very few of the extinctions throughout history were caused by humans. Ultimately if a species can't adapt to its conditions it does. That's how nature works. Take raccoons or coyotes... Hear them complaining about the humans invading their environment? I'd say they're doing better than ever. On the other hand we have the dodo. Now if that species had adapted to being eaten by humans by evolving to be less... edible... then it would have survived. But no... they had to remain tasty and delicious and the species paid the price!

    And keep in mind that all the other species on earth need us (or another species like us) and our clever monkey brains to figure out how to get off this rock before the sun explodes in a couple billion years. Otherwise all life that we know of will die and the whole entire exercise will have been pointless.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Top Of the Food Chain, Ma! by quizzicus · · Score: 4, Informative
      very few of the extinctions throughout history were caused by humans.

      Yeah, it's not like we've killed off so many species that scientists refer to the modern era as the Holocene Extinction Event, or the Sixth Extinction; or are claiming that this is the fastest mass extinction in Earth's history, giant meteors included. No, there's hardly any extinction going on.

      Please perform at least a cursory Google search before making broad scientific claims.

  36. Douglas Adams wrote about the baiji dolphin by monkeybrain · · Score: 5, Informative

    The late Douglas Adams (along with Mark Carwardine) wrote a book titled Last Chance to See about a number of animals on the brink of extinction. The chapter Blind Panic was all about the baiji dolphin's predicament. Practically blind, the baiji dolphin relied sonar to navigate the Yangtze river - the trouble is that the Yangtze is really busy and hence noisy and polluted. The baiji didn't stand a chance, though from the book it seemed that the Chinese did put a lot of effort into trying to save them.

    Scott