Will humanity in the future decide to eradicate certain species, on purpose?

I haven't come to the science sub-forum much, but I thought I'd make a thread about a topic that I've always wondered about: The question of whether future humanity will pick-and-choose which species will exist, on purpose?

And I'm thinking mainly of the very worst / most disliked creatures on Earth. Mosquitos, other bugs, etc.

There is the current mainstream belief that every single species is important, and serves its vital role for the larger ecosystem. So it's impossible to consider destroying a species on purpose, because it would create chain-effects that nobody can predict. Thus causing chaos in the ecosystem.

However, I believe that it's only a matter of time, until humanity will become so advanced, that they will end up choosing to destroy certain species, in the distant future. It's just inevitable, imo. Maybe in a thousand years, or something.

Also, not only do I think it's inevitable: I also think that they will be able to pull it off, without ruining ecosystems. Which means that I don't think that every single creature really is automatically needed. There are so many terrible creatures out there, that future scientists will see that they can be removed from existence, in some kind of way that works with the ecosystem.

And so I think in the very distant future, people will have eliminated most of the very worst forms of life on Earth, and it will be a better place altogether.

For example, all the worst bugs will need to go, especially roaches, but also flies (and especially horse-flies which can actually bite you), spiders, scorpions, etc.

Beyond the disgusting world of insects, there are also creatures which are so primitive, and so destructive, that they probably need to go, as well. I'm thinking of crocodiles / alligators / sharks, etc., who are hated by all creatures, and they contribute nothing good to the world.

Obviously: Not all predators would need to go, with some predators (like mammals, especially different felines) which are beautiful creatures. But future Earth should be able to eradicate predators who are so primitive and terrible, that the world is really better without them.

So I'm wondering if anyone else agrees that this will become the work of future humans, assuming that our species lasts that long? And do you guys agree with me that with advanced-enough science, they will be able to pull it off, without causing chaos in ecosystems, and end up with a better world in the end?

a reply to: JamesChessman

Man will attempt to control nature and it will end disastrously.

Every species has a purpose. Mosquitoes feed fish, birds and other useful animals. So while they and other insects can be annoying, getting rid of them could have bigger and more devastating consequences.

We did that with wolves on the west coast. TPTB decided they shouldn't have done that, and since native wolves were now extinct they imported the much larger Canadian wolf. The pacts keep multiplying and the herds are in serious trouble.

Mother Nature has done a pretty good job with the balancing act the eco system requires for eons; the disruption man has caused in many, many areas is showing signs of severe stress. Sooner or later we're going to reach the point of no return if we keep eradicating species before we even know their beneficial function.

I think by "advanced" you really mean "enlightened". When people get to that mindset they believe they know better than nature, or even God. The arrogance of people like that can be seen today in those like Bill Gates. They don't care about the need for every species to have a purpose for the whole, all they care about is their desires.

I could easily do without mosquitos and flies and yellowjackets and hornets and poisonous snakes, etc...

I think it more likely that a truly enlightened humanity will find ways to coexist with most of the creatures in nature such that we need not eradicate them. Instead, we'll find ways to deter them from annoying us.

originally posted by: nugget1
We did that with wolves on the west coast. TPTB decided they shouldn't have done that, and since native wolves were now extinct they imported the much larger Canadian wolf. The pacts keep multiplying and the herds are in serious trouble.

Mother Nature has done a pretty good job with the balancing act the eco system requires for eons; the disruption man has caused in many, many areas is showing signs of severe stress. Sooner or later we're going to reach the point of no return if we keep eradicating species before we even know their beneficial function.

Good points, and I really meant my thread to be about the very distant future, i.e. I wasn't really trying to address the modern-day widespread extinction which is apparently happening constantly... and it's terrible and needs to be resolved.

But I mean, in the hypothetical future of humans growing advanced enough with science, biology, etc. -- like in a thousand, or two thousand years -- don't you think they'll ever be able to figure out how to eradicate specific species, in a way that's overall a positive outcome?

I guess that's my real question, because I think it will happen inevitably. And I don't believe every single creature is really needed, when considering the most primitive, destructive species that plague the world today. Mosquitos, roaches, sharks, scorpions, poisonous spiders, etc. I just can't believe that the world is better with them, than without them, lol. There are much more favorable species which can fill their niche imo.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Just spend some time thinking about very many, many species eat mosquitos at all stages of their development all over the world.

a reply to: JamesChessman


Murder hornets can go imo.

I guess I must be in the extreme minority to find this idea abhorrent for a couple reasons:

1. I find most creatures to be absolutely fascinating even the repellent ones. They're all worth studying and knowing about.

2. Once you start deciding that certain species are worth allowing to live and die like that, what prevents you from stepping it up to entire groups of human beings?

originally posted by: ketsuko
I guess I must be in the extreme minority to find this idea abhorrent for a couple reasons:

1. I find most creatures to be absolutely fascinating even the repellent ones. They're all worth studying and knowing about.

2. Once you start deciding that certain species are worth allowing to live and die like that, what prevents you from stepping it up to entire groups of human beings?

For the record, I'm not suggesting that. I'm simply saying I could do without them around me.

a reply to: HalWesten

I didn't say you specifically were, but the premise of the OP is that we could eventually start deeming entire species unnecessary and eradicating them from the planet because they annoy us.

I think that's dangerous territory. I think it's better to have enough respect to find better ways to live with them and deter them from interacting with us.

originally posted by: JamesChessman


And so I think in the very distant future, people will have eliminated most of the very worst forms of life on Earth, and it will be a better place altogether.

I can't decide if this an attempt at trolling, dark humor or you're being serious.

Does this not strike you as a rather subjective, and potentially hypocritical, assessment?

Who are we to establish which forms of life on Earth are the "best" or "worst"?

What if this judgement pattern were to be applied on a cosmic scale, and homo sapiens were deemed a species that the universe would be a better place without?

originally posted by: ketsuko
I think it more likely that a truly enlightened humanity will find ways to coexist with most of the creatures in nature such that we need not eradicate them. Instead, we'll find ways to deter them from annoying us.

Well there's also the quality-of-life to consider for animals too.

For example, gators / crocs are entrenched in ecosystems throughout the world, including throughout African wilderness, where they haunt the water, to attack wildlife who need to drink water.

Which means that all those animals live in constant fear and threat of being suddenly, brutally killed by one, at practically any moment.

So it would seem obvious that eliminating gators would drastically improve the quality of life, for nearly all the wildlife throughout Africa, for example.

Then if there was a need for more predators, we'd probably see new growth of the lions and other cat species, which currently rule the predation of such ecosystems.

So I think it would work out... And if we're honest about it, trading the existence of all crocs and gators, for a huge growth in feline species, then that would be better for everyone.

Tigers, lions, leapords etc. are infinitely more valuable, than the existence of ALL crocodiles and alligators.

However, I won't be surprised if nobody will be able to agree with me about that. This kind of thinking is for the VERY distant future lol, not for the present-day world...

a reply to: JamesChessman

Now you're anthropomorphizing. Animals live in the moment. They do not live in constant dread of having to cross croc infested waters anymore than deer live in fear of the upcoming winter. Bears put on fat for winter, but they don't consciously do it because they know winter is coming, they do it because they get hella hungry.

When they come to the water, they are aware there is a predator likely to be lurking, but until that time, they don't have it eating them up with fear.

And if they did, well who's to say that those same animals who live in fear of crocs don't also spend every waking moment consumed by fear of stalking lions or tigers? What makes the one fear better to subject them to than the other?

Not to mention, from an evolutionary standpoint, crocs and gators are infinitely more perfect as species than the big cats. Big cats are relatively and highly specialized to their respective evolutionary niches. Crocs and gators? They were hear alongside the dinosaurs and have survived all this time relatively unchanged in their basic design. That's a sign of real evolutionary success.

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

originally posted by: JamesChessman


And so I think in the very distant future, people will have eliminated most of the very worst forms of life on Earth, and it will be a better place altogether.

I can't decide if this an attempt at trolling, dark humor or you're being serious.

Does this not strike you as a rather subjective, and potentially hypocritical, assessment?

Who are we to establish which forms of life on Earth are the "best" or "worst"?

What if this judgement pattern were to be applied on a cosmic scale, and homo sapiens were deemed a species that the universe would be a better place without?

Well I think it's darkly humorous, but also, I'm serious about it.

And I really mean it only for a hypothetical super-advanced version of humanity. Where they can actually understand the Earth's ecosystems, and understand the effects of their actions. (Which is not the case today.)

At that point, that they can understand Earth's biomes, inside and out, then yes, they will inevitably pick out certain species to eliminate. And they'll make it work out, positively, overall.

For example, I really like my previously posted example of future-humans choosing to eliminate alligators / crocs. It would improve the happiness of all the wildlife in Africa. And if the lack of gators led to an increase in feline predators instead, then surely lions etc. are much more valuable to the world. So it's a positive change for the world, overall.

...

To judge which creatures are "best" and "worst," we need to assess their effects on the rest of the world, plus their intrinsic value of intelligence and other qualities.

Reptiles are very dim intelligence, and lack all our mammalian capacity for love, for example.

So for particular reptiles who cause the most unhappiness for the world, then yes, future-humans will eliminate them.

Gators etc. lack intrinsic value of any positive aspects of their existence (besides their supposed role of population-control of their prey).

And so if gators' disappearance, then led to explosion of lions' numbers, then it would be MUCH BETTER wildlife to fill the Earth, with intelligence, love, relationships etc.

It's clear that Earth needs predators but it doesn't need specific predators, and future-humans will choose the better predators to replace the less-valuable ones.

a reply to: JamesChessman

You ever watch a mamma gator take care of her young?

But all that aside, gators are good eatin'. They also do have personality which argues for enough intellect to realize individualism. Even aquarium fish have that.

They are their own beings on a level and you are casually arguing for genocide because you think they serve no purpose as far as you are concerned.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Already happening:

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: JamesChessman

Already happening:

Here, you meant to post this:

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JamesChessman

You ever watch a mamma gator take care of her young?

But all that aside, gators are good eatin'. They also do have personality which argues for enough intellect to realize individualism. Even aquarium fish have that.

They are their own beings on a level and you are casually arguing for genocide because you think they serve no purpose as far as you are concerned.

Well I'm talking about thousands of years into the future, when they can understand ecosystems, far better than we can.

But yeah, future-humans will need to prioritize life-forms which are more advanced, over those which are less advanced.

And especially predators will need to be prioritized in that way. It seems clear that Earth needs predators, but there are primitive monsters, like gators, and then there are feline species as some of the best species ever lol.

So of course Africa's needs of predators would be much better met by an explosion of feline species, to replace the vanished gator species, in this hypothetical distant future.

...

For other examples: In the oceans, we need to eliminate sharks. They are like gators but even worse. Sharks are actually FISH, and their intelligence is very primitive, and limited. Sharks have the mind of other fish, and similar intrinsic value as other fish, EXCEPT that sharks cause terror and pain for everyone, unlike most fish!

In the hypothetical future: They'll decide that the oceans' predator needs are better met by increased MAMMAL species of the ocean, which are intelligent, and possibly far more than we can know. Mammalian water species, like dolphins and whales, are our cousins, with intelligent thoughts, relationships, love, feelings, etc.

So if the oceans are going to be filled by some kind of predators, then dam right (get it, dam?) they can be filled with loving, intelligent whales and dolphins, instead of the disgusting monster-fish called sharks.

Some life-forms are better for the world than others! We need to face the facts... in a few thousand years lol.

a reply to: JamesChessman

You need to spend some more time studying up on the roles different species of animals play in the ecosystem.

Nature is a delicate balance and if you eliminate any one group of animals, it can cause havoc in many direct and indirect ways.

Just because a species is annoying, it doesn't mean that animal doesn't serve a purpose.

I hate yellow jackets. I am severely allergic to them (as in I sometimes go straight to ER when stung). I despise the little buggers. Same with mosquitoes.

However, both of these little devil spawn feed other animals. The birds I enjoy hearing sing feed on mosquitoes and yellow jackets. So if you eliminate them, you cause other problems because you could starve birds.

Yellow jackets are pollinators and feed on other insects which can be harmful to crops and gardens. So despite hating them, I do benefit from them being around.

When you eliminate predators in the food chain you cause an explosion of other animals that can be damaging.