what are you doing to help save extinct animals /sci/? Nothing,

>>8667535
number of species means nothing if their loss isnt going to affect humanity

The animals are probably ungrateful little shits so I don't give a flying fuck

Not an scientifical argument

Natural selection

>>8667535
because they are already extinct, therefore I can't help them. they're DEAD.

>>8667546
Excuse me, but that is an awfully human-centric opinion you have, there. Did you know that there is actually a diversity of life on this planet with distinctly different cultures? Therefore, we should treat everyone with respect! Humans shouldn't be given special privileges, because they aren't actually special.

>>8667546
>humanity

We are literally animals who happened develop intelligence. It doesn't place us on a seperate tier from monkeys who est their own shit. We depend on yhe evironment to live, and the environment depends of millions of complex eco-relationships between plant and animals to function properly. When we drive species to extinctions we are forcing years of carefully balanced evolution to suddenly swing off-kelter and function in ways that can harm 'humanity'

>>8667650
You claim that humans aren't special, and then you claim that humans have the special ability to disturb the "natural balance" of the ecosystem they themselves are a part of. I think this is a flawed view. Our intelligence developed as a natural result of our environment, and any change that our intelligence causes in this environment is also natural. It just so happens that intelligence is an extremely complex force, and that we - because of our intelligence - interpret the changes we make to our environment as either bad or good.

>>8667535
I think we would do better without aerobic bacteria/infections (animals of all sizes). Better the dirty animals be in the ground as anaerobic bugs and not use my O2.

>>8667546
This. I mean people went all out to save the pandas even though they are high branch (a lot more resource and effort to save) and low significance (they arent keystone species nor do they have any important reason to live in amy situation) the only fuckin reason was because theyre cute n shit. So fuck all you god damned idiots.

>>8667680
Firstly, any animal can change the environment. Beavers and wolves alter the flow of rivers, but they aren't 'special' like we are.

I said that we are simply animals, I never said we weren't special. Our intellect has evolved to far exceed anything else in nature in terms of awareness and memory. Therefore we have the supreme ability to not only change the world around us, but to understand exactly the effects of our changes. This means that we know when we are damaging the world to our own detriment.

>everything we do is because we evolved that way, therefore we dont have to stop destroying the environment

Is this a fucking joke? This is the worst philosophy to have. By this logic we would condone murder. And you think the fact that we view things as good and bad is a product of evolution, so its to be ignored? What? Terrible opinion m8

>>8667680
And no, the rest of nature didn't plan ahead to evolve on becoming global apex predators with the ability to dam rivers, clearcut timber and change the chemical composition of the atomsphere. We need to be respnsible.

>>8667732
Plan on us*

>>8667535
How can I save something that doesn't exist anymore?

>>8667727
>therefore...
Literally nothing I said implied anything about what we SHOULD do. That post was neutral. My opinion, obviously, as a human, is that we should do whatever must do to survive.
But I view ourselves as part of the natural environment, and so we and our effects aren't any more or less artificial than anything around us.

>>8667546
>letting the result of millions of years of evolution disappear just like that

you worthless nigga

>>8667758
Humans are literally at the apex of this "millions of years of evolution." Who cares about other stupid animals? They didn't win the game.

>>8667751
Then why even respond in the first place? My original post said nothing about our effects being "artificial". They are very real and very much a part of nature, but to write a behaviour off as "natural" is failing to improve as a species. Like yeah, its natural that we dam rivers and cut down trees. Its clearly part of human nature. Is it something we should do until exhaustion? No. So I don't get what you're driving at.

Being intelligent enough to realize when to stop is also natural.

>>8667763
Yeah.. YEAH!

Im going to start stomping out squirrels and other life thats smaller than me

>>8667818
That's fine, but don't complain when I stomp you out because I'm bigger than you.

File: 1486267822512.gif (348KB, 350x233px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 350x233px

>>8667763
>apex of millions of years of evolution

>>8667826
You can fucking try mate,
Im trained kiddo. Ill cold-clock you. Rip you to shreds mate. I've tarried with tougher chavs than you im sure itll be easy for me to handle :^)

>>8667839
ur fuggin dead kiddo.

>>8667636
Fuck off vegan scum, no one gives a fuck about other animals. If they don't directly affect humans, there is no reason to give a fuck.

>>8667535
/Thread

tragic

but life will go on long after we're gone

>>8667535
I'm researching time travel. So maybe I can figure out how to go back in time and prevent extinctions.

>>8667535
I don't know, I'm kind of wishing we were extinct at this point.

>>8667535
I'm personally doing nothing to make animals extinct so I am a neutral fuck actually

>>8667594
this, retards antropomorphizing biology instead of reading the basics of it like Dolo's law make me cringe so fucking munch
These animals are extinct, they are done, their place in nature and ecological niche are all evaporated, we live on an entropic universe, get over it

>>8667535
Do we even have dodo DNA on file anywhere?

>>8667535
fucking white people wherever they go they bring death and destruction. literally evil in human form

>>8669142
up your mom's ass, I'm sure. Go get it.
>>8669160
fuck off to /pol/ shithead libtard racist

>>8669142
We have museum specimens. Museum specimens can be sequenced, but the quality is often poor. Comparing dead older specimens to living specimens is a common method for studying evolution in various animals.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (281KB, 1669x940px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1669x940px

Serious utilitarian and ethical questions, what do we lose as humans if some exotic animal went extinct?

Humanity isn't necessarily would've been better if the wolly mammoth were still around. Is it justified to spend so much money and research on conservation of exotic animals like pandas, coattails quetzals, polar bears and rhinos, if there are still people dying from malaria, schistomiasis, and other easily preventable diseases?

Some animals who are critical to society, bees, earthworms, etc are obviously exempt from this assessment.

>>8667560
not scientificalistic in the least

>live in former passenger pigeon country
>passenger pigeons are gonna be the first fucktards off the de-extinction train
We knew that shooting them was going to wipe them out. That was the point. The entire point was not being molested by billions of pigeons every time we went outside.

File: lighten-up.jpg (52KB, 675x450px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 675x450px

>>8667690
Lighten up, Francis.

>>8670601
>We knew
"we" didn't know shit, Cletus.

>>8669848
take your meds with a full glass of water, Arlo

>people who don't have a moral code try to argue why other people shouldn't do what they want: the topic