Scientists Create a "Worth Saving" Index For Endangered Animals

If you're one of the last hairy-nosed-wombats left in Australia things got a little worse for you today. Thanks to a new mathematical tool created by researchers from James Cook University and the University of Adelaide, the wombat has been classified as not worth saving. Co-author of the safe index Professor Corey Bradshaw says he doesn't think people should give up on saving extremely endangered animals but adds, "...if you take a strictly empirical view, things that are well below in numbering in the hundreds - white-footed rock rats, certain types of hare wallabies, a lot of the smaller mammals that have been really nailed by the feral predators like cats, and foxes - in some cases it is probably not worthwhile putting a lot of effort because there's just no chance."

Comments

Well, you can't save 'em all

[elrous0]

I know it's not very politically-correct to say it, but I don't think we should be trying to save every species. The prevailing assumption today seems to be that mankind is causing every extinction on the planet and, as such, we should be working to save every species and variety of endangered animal. Even ignoring that fact that mankind is part of nature too, extinction is a natural process that was taking place long before we existed. It seems to me that a world where species DON'T go extinct (thanks to our efforts) would disrupt the natural processes of evolution. Our guilt complex could create a very unnatural world.

And for the record, I think Pandas are cute. But they're not exactly a hearty lot.

Re:Well, you can't save 'em all

[drinkypoo]

I guess alot of this would come down to one question, are humans responisble for why they are an endangered species?

There are other relevant and unanswerable questions, such as would they have gone extinct without our help. However, since we can't save them all, the MOST important question BY FAR is how important is this creature to the ecosystem upon which I depend. Everything else is just moral masturbation.

Re:Well, you can't save 'em all

[NeutronCowboy]

True. The problem is that his metric is wrong. The easiest way to deal with a pesky endangered animal that is blocking your development has now become to actually kill it even more. Once it goes below the specified threshold, it's put on the not-worth-saving list, and you can merrily go on developing.

The proper metric is how important a particular species is to its local environment. Think keystone species like Krill, wolves, Killer Whales or Tuna. The problem is that this is difficult - how do you measure importance? How do you know you measured something right, or at all? The response to this is that of caution: if we don't know which ones to save, we'll try to save as many as we can, and hope we pick right.

Re:Well, you can't save 'em all

[Sloppy]

It seems to me that a world where species DON'T go extinct (thanks to our efforts) would disrupt the natural processes of evolution. Our guilt complex could create a very unnatural world.

What's so great about evolution or living in a natural world? Like gravity, evolution merely is. Are you suggesting it's some kind of ideal to strive for or preserve?

Everything comes down to the question: What do you want? Unless you happen to like like catching smallpox, starving, falling down and skinning your knee, or sleeping in the rain -- or yes, if you like losing species whose DNA codes potentially useful proteins or species that are just plain pleasingly cute -- mother nature doesn't "want" what you want. I'm not saying be either her friend or her foe; I'm saying it's silly to want to respect her "wishes." She doesn't respect your wishes. That bitch is cold.

Fuck evolution. Evolution is something you need to understand and perhaps use, but it's not something to love.

Not that I disagree with you at all that we can't or shouldn't expend the effort to save every species. But damn, using "it's a natural process" as a reason for deciding a certain way -- ICK!

Re:Well, you can't save 'em all

[quatin]

Pandas are the perfect example of something we should save. The low breeding ratio for pandas is an evolutionary trait that's beneficial in its natural environment. A panda is a giant cow with teeth and claws. It has no natural predators once it reaches adult size. If pandas were to breed on the level of rabbits it would destroy the plant ecosystem in Asia. The truth is if it were not for deforestation by humans, the pandas would be prolific. We need to balance our effect on the environment.

Examples of animals not worth saving would be the endangered freshwater mollusk colony in north Florida that was at risk due to low water levels caused by prolonged drought.

Re:Well, you can't save 'em all

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't save species, we can only mitigate the damage we do to their habitats, and we'll never do that because we're collectively too selfish, short-sided, and stupid, our psyches captured by the echo chamber BS. Looking at puppets like Senator Barton, another big-oil green-house effect denier, shows the general attitude of the status quo.

Re:Well, you can't save 'em all

[Jhon]

100% of all living things will go extinct, without question./blockquote

100% of every statement that precedes the phrase "without question" should be questioned. Without question.

Re:Morality is a legitimate part of policy

[SleazyRidr]

I think there can be a lot of interesting argument where morality and rationality intersect. It can depend largely upon how you interpret morality.

Using your example of rape. If some random stranger is raped, immediately I may not care. But the person who raped the original victim could then go on to rape my sister, or someone else could see that rape has no consequences and rape my sister. The emotion impact would then mean that I would have to support my sister, or that she would be unable to support me. Preventing the original rape then becomes a matter of self interest.

Referring to endangered animals: we can probably agree that preventing animals from going extinct is a largely moral goal, and saving more animals is even more moral. Unfortunately, we do not have unlimited resources to save every animal there is, so directing some of our resources toward and animal that may have little to no chance of surviving anyway would reduce the available resources for other animals, potentially leading to them becoming extinct - an immoral action.

I think a lot of this comes from humans evolution as social animals, moral actions help the whole group of people, and largely serve the purposes of the individual. People often bag on religion as deciding the moral code, but atheist morality puts a lot of this stuff in terms of helping other people, which will eventually serve your own interest.