Slashdot Mirror
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."
Pandas are the perfect example of something not worth saving. There are many that suppose that pandas were on their way out as a species without our interference just because of the extreme inefficiency of their bodies. It takes an extreme amount of energy to process the bamboo it eats, not to mention the birth problems it faces with low birth rates and high infant mortality. The only reason we have rallied behind pandas is because they're cute, and maybe there is some benefit to having a cute staple animal we've saved as a rallying cry for conservation, but I'd like to think there were easier options out there.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
At one point, the Smallpox variola virus was almost completely wiped out, surviving only in a few laboratories around the world.
Now, thanks to the efforts of some people who were able to free some of those remaining captive virus, it may someday be possible to reintroduce them into the wild, allowing them to once again freely complete in nature.
Won't that be nice? Another endangered species brought back from the brink of extinction.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
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!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.