Will total eradication be required? Justified Slaughter?

I got to thinking after reading this news article on Varroa mite threatens Australia's bees.

I wonder if there will ever be a time when a government will be forced to decimate large areas of fertile land and/or national parks in order to eradicate an invasive species?

No doubt, most of you would have heard of Australia's problems with invasive species like mynah birds, cane toads, foxes & rabbits. Native animals are suffering due to being unable to compete with invaders who are slowly taking over virgin forests, spoiling a balance which has been in play for many thousands of years.

As most of you are well aware, this problem is not limited to Australia, but to every continent on the planet.

What do you think?

Will there ever be a time when we will have to make a modern "Noah's Ark", isolate the native species - flora & fauna - and totally eradicate a large area of land in order to stop invading species from migrating?

How would we go about destroying a large area of forest and its inhabitants? (Don't forget that several species including Mynah birds and cane toads are not affected by forest fires.)

Could it be done whilst still leaving the land fertile?

Eridicate fertile land to stop an invading species? No, don't see that happening. Eridicate fertile land then BLAMING an "invading species"? Oh yeah, now that is very feasible indeedy,.

reply to post by Kyprian


I don't know if your aware of the issue, but in north-western Australia, there is a major problem with native species eating toxic Cane toads and dying. Several species are at risk of extinction if something isn't done soon.

Is there a point of no return?

Is there a point where the only option we have left will be to breed the native species in captivity and terminate all life in the forest in order to start again and restore the balance?

Sorry for asking a dumb question, but isn't that what a neutron bomb is supposed to do?

reply to post by OccamAssassin


It is estimated that anywhere from 25-100 species will become extinct each day on planet earth.

I agree a lot with the first response by Kyprian, because our governments do not act in the interest of the people or the environment.
I think that Australian species are at a bigger risk from human influence such as chemicals, pollution, habitat destruction etc, but the effect of introduced species is huge also and almost impossible to stop.
You would have to destroy half of Australia to get rid of the cane toad; it is simply not a viable solution.

Trying to save the ecosystem will be near impossible, its not going to be long before we lose a key part in the food chain causing the whole thing to collapse.
The plight of bees all around the world is huge, and without them we die off very quickly.

I believe trying to build darwins paradise is how we arrived in this situation the best thing to do is let mother nature harmonise herself and stop interfering with # we don't understand.

Originally posted by usernamehere
I believe trying to build darwins paradise is how we arrived in this situation the best thing to do is let mother nature harmonise herself and stop interfering with # we don't understand.

Therein lies the problem.

We have already meddled and the balance has been lost.

Originally posted by charles1952
Sorry for asking a dumb question, but isn't that what a neutron bomb is supposed to do?

Not dumb at all......Star for you.

I hadn't thought about a Neutron bomb....kudos.

It made me wonder about residual radiation......

......since there is virtually no residual radiation from the weapons (other than the radiation from the fission trigger), forces could occupy the attacked area within a matter of hours without special protective clothing and without fear of contamination.

Strategic Implications
of Enhanced Radiation Weapons

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
We have already meddled and the balance has been lost.

Don't be bloody ridiculous. Nature is dynamic, always changing. This scenario has occurred countless times through Earth's natural history. Nature creates new balances from the old, that's why the planet is as beautiful today as it ever was. Do you think if humanity had been around hundreds of millions of years ago we should be looking at methods of keeping the dinosaur population going? No-one was around to preserve the species and now we have BIRDS as a product of the natural re-balancing and evolution of nature. It is arrogant to second guess nature when it has been shifting and changing in response to calamities before we even left the jungles.

Stop the "neutron bomb" sheer insanity and go to school please!

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
We have already meddled and the balance has been lost.

Don't be bloody ridiculous. Nature is dynamic, always changing. This scenario has occurred countless times through Earth's natural history.

This just tells me that you have absolutely no idea about the problem at hand.

Nature creates new balances from the old, that's why the planet is as beautiful today as it ever was.

You mean just like the Thylacine, right?

Do you think if humanity had been around hundreds of millions of years ago we should be looking at methods of keeping the dinosaur population going?

Now there is a comparable scenario.

What was the reason for the collapse of the Dinosaur population? Let me know when someone has a definitive answer.

No-one was around to preserve the species and now we have BIRDS as a product of the natural re-balancing and evolution of nature. It is arrogant to second guess nature when it has been shifting and changing in response to calamities before we even left the jungles.

Again, it is hardly comparable. Completely different scenarios. If man had not introduced species that are not part of the natural ecosystem, we would not have this problem. This is not a natural problem!

Stop the "neutron bomb" sheer insanity and go to school please!

It may be a last resort scenario but it is still a legitimate argument. The solution is scalable as well.

For example in the case of the Asian bee invasion. If the bee population could be found to be confined to an area of a few square kilometres, any residence (human, livestock, native flora and native fauna) could be removed and a neutron bomb with the appropriate yield could be detonated above the area at an altitude high enough to ensure that there was no physical damage from the initial detonation. The area could be back in use within a day or three and there would be no damage to man-made structures.

The same tactic could be employed to fight malicious biological pathogens.

I wouldn't call using a neutron bomb sheer insanity at all. It might seem drastic, but like any tool, it can be used or abused.

It isn't really an issue anyway as the only neutron bombs were held by the US military and Bush Sr axed the program in 1990.

Originally posted by TheCommentator
reply to post by OccamAssassin

 

It is estimated that anywhere from 25-100 species will become extinct each day on planet earth.

I agree a lot with the first response by Kyprian, because our governments do not act in the interest of the people or the environment.

I agree

I think that Australian species are at a bigger risk from human influence such as chemicals, pollution, habitat destruction etc, but the effect of introduced species is huge also and almost impossible to stop.

This is a pet subject of mine as I come from the engineering industry. I agree that habitat destruction and pollution are areas for major concern worldwide, but not so much for Australia as a whole. Sure we have our issues, most notably would be mining and power generation, but Australia has excellent legislation in place against pollution (on par with California, probably better) and apart from the odd bad apple, I would have to say that most Australian's are relatively 'green conscious' and try to do their bit.

Personally, I think that all of Australia's pollution concerns are going to be because of past transgressions. Former chemical plants, rubbish dumps & mines that were never subject to any form of EPA legislation. They contaminated, not only the ground around the sites, but also the groundwater downstream from them.

The legislation that is now in place has made a huge difference to the manufacturing and mining industries. For example, Chrome-plating used to be the stuff of nightmares as far as the environment is concerned. Acids laced with heavy-metals, dioxins and all sorts of toxic compounds were dumped straight into waterways without concern for the consequences. Now-a-days, all the waste material is subject to stringent process of disposal and every last litre of it has a paper trial to ensure compliance with the law.
Australia is far from being perfect, but I believe that our pollution concerns pale in comparison to any other western country.

You would have to destroy half of Australia to get rid of the cane toad; it is simply not a viable solution.

I agree completely. The cane toad is well beyond the point of containment. The only thing that I can see as a viable solution for cane toad eradication would be some form of species specific virus. That in itself, could be opening Pandora's box.

Trying to save the ecosystem will be near impossible, its not going to be long before we lose a key part in the food chain causing the whole thing to collapse.
The plight of bees all around the world is huge, and without them we die off very quickly.

Time to build a machine that harvests pollen and redistributes it.

Star