What’s wrong with purposely causing the extinction of animals?

Originally posted by andre18
Jelly fish…..for one….I don’t see how they would upset the food chain or the environment if they were extinct…and they also do us a great deal of harm…..I know for a fact that certain seals it them…..I’m not sure about sea lions but I know most seals do…but the dietary needs of jelly fish for seals is so small that even if jelly fish were to be extinct by naturel causses ….seals would easily live on…I’ll get to the others in a sec.

Live on what? Fish? That would turn those seals into direct competitors with our own use. As it is, we're already culling seal populations in the Arctic regions of Canada so that they don't overfish the area. And why did that situation happen to begin with? Decline of polar bear populations. But you probably already know this.

Incidentally, our over-fishing and depletion of fish stocks is what's causing jellyfish populations to bloom in the first place.

Medusae, siphonophores, and ctenophores as planktivorous predators in changing global ecosystems

Evidence is provided that medusae, siphonophores, and ctenophores are actually important predators in both sorts of planktonic ecosystems, although uneven reporting in the literature may be cause for underestimates of the importance of these carnivores in some systems. As world fisheries begin to experience serious declines, it is relevant to recognize that the carnivorous "jellyfishes" are ubiquitous and are thus opportunistically positioned to utilize secondary production that is ordinarily consumed by fish.

Here's an article on that for the laymen to understand:
Fewer Fish Leads to Jellyfish Explosion

Anyway, some sea turtles also eat jellyfish. Not just sea turtles, but people too, it seems.

Pelagic Longline Fishery-
Sea Turtle Interactions

Speaking of diet, according to the literature, jellyfish seem to be a large part of the diet for some sea turtles. There is growing demand for Cannon Ball Jellyfish in China, Japan, Taiwan and other Pacific rim countries. Not only are they valued as a delicacy but their collagen content may be a marketable substitute for current sources. Fisheries are being developed worldwide for these species, including in the U.S. Yet another in a long list of concerns surrounding sea turtles.

More science papers on the sea turtles and the importance of jellyfish in their diet:
The Biology of Sea Turtles - Chapter 8 - Foraging Ecology and Nutrition of Sea Turtles
Sea turtles as biological transporters of nutrients and energy from marine to terrestrial ecosystems

There's actually a lot more papers on sea turtles, but the above two are the most interesting ones. On top of that, the second paper above shows the more complex interactions. In a nutshell, the second paper describes how nutrients taken in by the jellyfish are in turn taken in by the sea turtles who consume them, which are in turn taken in by birds and other predators on land (sea turtle offspring/eggs). So taking out jellyfish may cause a cascade reaction that eventually affect land creatures.

If I were to go deeper in that chain, I'm sure I'd find something to show you how it would eventually effect you directly. But, that link is tenuous at best, so instead I'll show you this:

Natural history of ctenophores in the Resolute Passage area of the Canadian High Arctic with special reference to Mertensia

In the marine ecosystem, gelatinous predators appear to be important regulators of prey populations and con-
trol their own populations by preying on each other and their own offspring (Kremer 1976, Reeve et al. 1978, Greve & Reiners 1988, Purcell 1991). They feed at all levels in the food web, thereby acting both as predators
of and potential competitors with fish and other zoo-plankton (Moller 1980, Shushkina & Musayeva 1983, Purcell & Grover 1990). These predators can have daily rations exceeding 1000 % of their body weight which can be converted into rapid growth rates (Reeve et al. 1978). High feeding rates, combined with rapid growth, show that control of zooplankton populations is within their capabilities (Greve & Reiners 1988). Control of copepod population growth keeps phytoplankton populations from being overgrazed (Greve & Reiners 1988) and algal growth may be enhanced by the return of dissolved nutnents through excretion into the water column (Biggs 1977, Park
& Carpenter 1987).

Emphasis mine. Why did I emphasise that? Well as it happens, I've done extensive research on algae (for my algae biofuel thread). It is one of the most important, if not the most important life form on the planet. They form the basis of the entire marine food chain and they output an estimated 70-80% of the planet's oxygen supply. While environmentalist are getting uppity about declining forests and giving preferential coverage to it, the lowly pond scum and it's important role in the whole planetary ecology and climatology has been largely ignored by the media.

So, remove the jellyfish, zooplankton (copepods) will start overgrazing the phytoplankton (algae). That in turn reduces the oxygen supply while simultaneously increasing the CO2 supply (far worse than all the factories and all the cars in the world could). I don't have to explain to you why this is bad.

I'll get to your mosquito issue later... my head is aching from too much reading. As much as I hate mosquitoes myself, I'm sure they have a bigger role than being bat food (which has already been mentioned on page 6 here in case you missed it).

reply to post by Rasobasi420


So you're willing to accept the deaths of millions of people....? What if the number was even higher for goodness sake....10 million a year.....are you for real?




[edit on 17-1-2008 by andre18]

*wakes up, blinks...confused...*

Please tell me this thread still isn't going maaan ????! Please maaaan, ya gotta tell me....this whole thread did my head in, I been asleep for 24 hrs thread...

Tell me it ain't so maannnn....arrgghhhhhhhh

*runs to the hills a la Iron Maiden*

reply to post by andre18


Jelly fish? Are you serious?

Not only do they keep populations of fish in check by eating various baby fish and other small creatures, there are some fish that take refuge in jellyfish tentacles allowing them to survive and keep their population at a decent level.

reply to post by andre18


Yes. I don't know what the population impact would be if mosquitoes were eradicated. What if a specific type of mosquito larvae survived on bacteria that humans were violently sickened and killed by? That number could be 20-30-40 million for all we know.

reply to post by Rasobasi420


I've addressed the jellyfish issue in detail. Raist has also addressed the mosquito issue earlier.

Andre, it would do you well to read and understand those two posts first before you continue down that/those line(s) of enquiry.

Post on mosquitoes
Post on jellyfish

reply to post by Beachcoma


Thanks Beach. I'll stop in that case. I wasn't looking to get into major detail, just give a brief description. At this point I'll just sit back and watch .

This ought to be good.

reply to post by Beachcoma


Incidentally, our over-fishing and depletion of fish stocks is what's causing jellyfish populations to bloom in the first place. …I see….makes sense……though…the fact of the matter is….we are still causing the extinction of fish as said in your own article….even if I was to put down by theory….the mass extinction is still a reality, whether we do it on purpose or not…. we are still responsible for the increase of jelly fish ….and the decrease of polar bears…...( why polar bears..? apparently global warming….thanks to us..) And so which ever way you look at it…it’s our damn fault….if this thread has served any real purpose apart from my theory…it is to show that we are still damaging the planet through either way…..and you can’t discredit that…..

Anyway, some sea turtles also eat jellyfish…yes…but I sincerely doubt they eat every single type of jelly fish in the world…..we could still kill off the one’s that sea turtles don’t eat….

There is growing demand for Cannon Ball Jellyfish in China, Japan, Taiwan and other Pacific rim countries. I don’t wont to be racist, but the Chinese epically eat anything.. rats, dogs and all…I don’t think the people of china are going to starve to death because of some shortage in a delicacy


[edit on 17-1-2008 by andre18]

Here's the funny thing. If you are an atheist, or an evolutionist, there is NOTHING wrong with killing off entire species. After all, they must not have been FIT ENOUGH for the environment. See, those animals that are killed off haven't ADAPTED to our current environment, and don't deserve to be around. You don't see a shortage of cows, horses, sheep, dogs, or cats do you? That's because they have a useful function for humans. However, if you believe in God, he has commanded humans to be good stewards of the resources on this planet.

So, the ironic thing is that atheists and evolutionists have no ethical or LOGICAL reason to protect any species. On the other hand, if you are a Christian, you have a duty and responsibility to protect animals. Ironic, isn't it?

I'm at work at the moment so haven't had time to read through the thread properly so forgive me if I echo whats already been said!

Why do you think that we have the right to randomly go round killing creatures which have as much right to be alive on this planet as we do? What if they decided it would be safer without us and decided to go round killing as many of us as possible?

Besided that, each and every living thing is a part of an ecosystem. without one another couldn't survive and that reaches all the way up to us.

Life exists in these different forms for a reason. You might regret it if we killed off all the spiders and got swarmed by flies and I don't think it would really be possible to kill every fly on the planet do you?

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Here's the funny thing. If you are an atheist, or an evolutionist, there is NOTHING wrong with killing off entire species. After all, they must not have been FIT ENOUGH for the environment. See, those animals that are killed off haven't ADAPTED to our current environment, and don't deserve to be around. You don't see a shortage of cows, horses, sheep, dogs, or cats do you? That's because they have a useful function for humans. However, if you believe in God, he has commanded humans to be good stewards of the resources on this planet.

So, the ironic thing is that atheists and evolutionists have no ethical or LOGICAL reason to protect any species. On the other hand, if you are a Christian, you have a duty and responsibility to protect animals. Ironic, isn't it?

Yes because it's not like it says anything about sacrificing animals in the bible does it…or for that matter other people..

Originally posted by andre18

if this thread has served any real purpose apart from my theory…it is to show that we are still damaging the planet through either way…..and you can’t discredit that…..

Not the way I see it. If anything, it shows how delicate the balance in the ecosystem is, and how removing or adding certain species would create a cascade of effects that more often than not are undesirable.

Another good reason to not kill off the jellies that the sea-turtles don't eat is that some possess useful chemicals that may become the next big thing in medicine (you can find that in one of the links I provided above... don't remember exactly which one). If they go extinct before we've had the chance to examine them, it would have been a great loss. But this link isn't as good as the algae/oxygen/CO2 regulation mechanism I mentioned earlier, which directly affects everyone on the planet.

As for the Chinese eating jellyfish -- hahaha, yeah, they'll eat anything. But in fairness to them, the native tribes in Borneo, in the Malaysian state of Sarawak eat jellyfish as well -- tried it, it's not so good. Not exactly my cup of tea, or jelly in this case.

reply to post by Beachcoma


Ok I had read of the mosquito reply….but most of that stuff is irrelevant….as I said before with a link…. mosquitos kill 2-3 million people a year…..a year….case closed on the mosquitos….ok…or so you want to say 3 million deaths a year is a small price to pay…?

reply to post by andre18


This thread still going??

Just because you think they are useless, doesn't mean they are.

I've got a whole page of things to tell you, but I'm not going to waste my time until you start to wake up and realise how wrong you are.

You are not god, stop trying to play god.

Because you obviously don't have the knowledge, passion and respect for life, the respect for nature, life of millions of different creatures that make up this world, the part of the world that's still beautiful, the part of the world that people enjoy to learn about. They are not useless, they are part of the world. And we dont have the right to play god and choose who we think is useless or not.

Would you want someone with the same thoughts as you, except he thinks your country, your family is useless and dangerous, to kill you all off.

Would you like aliens to come here and decide we are all useless and dangerous, and decide to make us extinct?

I don't think so.

reply to post by _Phoenix_


The difference is god doesn't exist... and if it does......let it try and stop the already vast amounts of people causing the extinction of fish and other creatures.....we are all ready playing "god" hell we went to Japan and used an nuclear bomb on them for bloody sake.....we can pretty much do what ever we want....people are starving in Africa.....and nothing's really being done about it....homeless on the streets....no one cares....

Where's your god for these people ..

reply to post by andre18


Pollination of plants is irrelevant? Unless you only eat meat, then I wouldn't call it irrelevant. How about food for fish larvae (mosquito larvae) which grow up to become fish on your table? Unless you only eat plants... catch-22 situation here.

As for the 3 million deaths, sit and think carefully about that. If there were no mosquitoes to cause those deaths, there'd be 3 million more mouths to feed. And since there is a shortage of (male) mosquitoes to pollinate plants, provide bat food so that bat droppings can fertilize those and provide food for fish, well, we certainly have a big problem there. How many people would die of starvation then? How many wars will be started to gain control of land for whatever remaining food that can be produced?

Fact of the matter is, we don't know enough about the complete role mosquitoes play in the ecosystem (just as it is with every other creature). If we completely eradicated them, and if history is any indicator of how that usually turns out, the outcome will not be so favourable. Chances are it would be like plugging one leak only to spring two more leaks.

Instead of getting rid of them, why not make use of them?

Biodiversity and Sustainability of Wetland Rice Production: Role and Potential of Microorganisms and Invertebrates (P.A. Roger et al.)

Numerous competitor and predator species have been tested to control vectors. The most promising method for mosquito control is to stock food fish in and around ricefields. It reduces vector and weed incidence, increases rice yields, partly because of the fish excreta, and produces fish food (Self, 1987). In the Philippines, the combined culture of larvivorous Tilapia and common carp in ricefields, with supplemental feeding, produced about 700 kgfish ha-' year-' (Petr, 1987).

As an aside, tilapia is edible and quite tasty to boot. So the Filipinos get rice AND fish. The fish bonus would not have happened if it weren't for mosquitoes.

Here is a good paper on wetlands and mosquito management. Let me highlight a very good paragraph from that paper:

Restoring Nature, Without Mosquitoes?

Sometimes, if we communicate interests, rather than digging in to opposing positions, better solutions emerge. We want to preserve native species and we want to reduce the risk of spread of vector-borne diseases that threaten humans (and, arguably, sometimes non-human animals). One attractive possibility is to use endangered native species of fish to control mosquitoes in wetlands and private ponds. However, some wetland managers hesitate to introduce endangered fish, because then the wetland project faces significantly more regulation. In Arizona, private citizens have been unable to acquire some native species of fish, because it has been illegal for pet stores to sell them. These obstacles are being addressed by various government agencies. If the sale of these fish is legalized and introducing them to one's property does not add excessive legal liability, then perhaps more Gila topminnow and desert pupfish may get opportunities to eat mosquitoes in Arizona (Tobin 2003; Weedman 2003).

Isn't that better than using pesticides and making all that flying protein go to waste?

Originally posted by Beachcoma


As for the Chinese eating jellyfish -- hahaha, yeah, they'll eat anything. But in fairness to them, the native tribes in Borneo, in the Malaysian state of Sarawak eat jellyfish as well -- tried it, it's not so good. Not exactly my cup of tea, or jelly in this case.

Haha yeah not my cup of tea either, but because they'll try anything is probably the main reason we drink tea in the first place, being that most tea come from china.

[edit on 17-1-2008 by _Phoenix_]

Andre...

EVERY single point you have attempted to make on this thread has been flawed in one way or another...Why ? Lack of fore thought...

You did not anticipate people on this board calling you out for fanciful ideas not even remotely based in fact...

And as it has continued throughout this thread...

You remind me a lot of that lousy little party boy from Melbourne who had 500 to his party and will not accept what he did was wrong or in correct, no matter how it is put to him...

Like this kid, you need to to at least CONSIDER the advice given on this thread,,,,I reckon if you choose not to, this shows me one of two things...

1) you've been looking for trouble and trolling all along, which is pathetic...

or

2) Perhaps your original thought you believed to be reasonable....But with so much factional stuff thrown your way, if you still honestly believe what you believe leads me to think...

1) You're a kid stirring up # and needs a kick up the arse...

OR

2) You have some serious problems which the state mental health authorities need to deal with...

You have to understand, little of what you have said makes any sense at all...Quite a bit of what you have said has made me doubt your state of mind...

But the biggie is a kid who has too much time on his hands and wants to disrupt reasonable discussion on a site which doesn't deserve people like you...

Frankly, I believe you should be banned post haste unless you give a really good reason not to be...

Originally posted by andre18

The difference is god doesn't exist...

and if it does......let it try and stop the already vast amounts of people causing the extinction of fish and other creatures.....we are all ready playing "god" hell we went to Japan and used an nuclear bomb on them for bloody sake.....we can pretty much do what ever we want....people are starving in Africa.....and nothing's really being done about it....homeless on the streets....no one cares....

Where's your god for these people ..

Riiiiiiiight.............

So we can pretty do whatever we want because of our history, and because there is no god? whatever your beliefs, whatever our history, it still doesn't make it right to do whatever we want.

Just because you dont believe god exists doesn't mean you should laugh at me. Where's the respect?

[edit on 17-1-2008 by _Phoenix_]

reply to post by Beachcoma


Ok......as much as I could probably think of some more creature's.....like a deadly virus....we don't need them

I think I get your point......food chain and all.....I might put this idea away except for this........

Here's something different…..what about plant eating creatures…..? You can’t possibly mess up the food chain if you for what ever reason were to kill off say elephants….yes lions and other predators do kill elephants for food….I remember seeing a nature program where a large group of lionesses took down a large elephant….but such killings by lions or any other predators are very rare….. most lions and tigers and such go for much smaller prey like wild pigs and buffalo.


[edit on 17-1-2008 by andre18]