Fragile Earth part 1 : Tribute to the lost ones.

Climate change, human activities, urbanization, hunting and poaching, habitat destruction ... Animal species disappear every day, every month, every year.



Baiji dolphin of China Extinct since 2006.



It was a freshwater dolphin, a single species whose disappearance is due to humans: the Baiji only lived in one river in China, the Yangtze. Transiting of an important amount of vessels, prevented their proper movement , increasing the risk of capture, collision and injury. Water pollution of the Yangtze was also an important factor in their disappearance.



Pyrenean ibex Extinct since 2000



Extinct due to massive hunting of the species for 200 years, the last representative of the species, a female named Celia, died in 2000.



Ivory-billed Woodpecker Extinct since 2004



The bird has long been a victim of poaching for its beak, head and red crest.



black rhinoceros Extinct since 2011



This species lived mainly in Cameroon and disappeared only due to poaching.



Golden Toad Extinct since 1990



the golden toad was distinguished by its small size but also its golden orange color, bright color and phosphorescent. Climate change and destruction of its environment are the cause of extinction.



Pinta Island tortoise Extinct since 2012



June 2012, Lonesome George, the last representative of the species of giant tortoises of Pinta, died and with him his species. In 1960, goats were introduced to Pinta Island by humans and ate most of the vegetation those tortoise were feeding from.

Video of Lonesome George :




The Earth is indeed fragile and here are the victims of the reckless human behavior . Magnificent creature forever erased from the surface of the Earth.

Thanks for bringing this under attention.
I'm afraid this list will keep getting longer in relative short time.
A sad tribute, really.

On a sidenote: are you the Austrian musician/producer, or just chose this name?

Quadruple post?
Sorry, don't know how that happened...
Maybe mods can be so kind to remove this post-overload.

Maybe those animals who died out had to make place for new comers...?

Originally posted by 0bserver1
Maybe those animals who died out had to make place for new comers...?

those aren't new, just new to us.

I'm not saying humans arent destroying habitats/ecosystems/food chains/etc,

but its important to remember we will never have any information about the 'natural' extinction rate of species.

The more humans there are the less space exists for other animals. We destroy much of the world's wild spaces to grow crops and breed cattle to eat. Our success as a species in one huge ecological disaster for the diversity of our planet.

I wonder what would be left in the way of other species if some disaster caused mass starvation and every creature was seen as the next meal. If the Human Race survived such a thing what would we be left with, what kind of world would it be?

It is so sad to see how we humans destroy our nature...

It is one thing for mother nature to choose who lives, who dies, and which species flourish. It is another thing entirely for these creatures to be wiped out by the apathy of humans. I am no tree hugger, but I do believe in conservation and acting responsibly. May whatever god truly exists have mercy upon us for all our wrong doing. It probably won't be long before we are the cause of our own endangerment, if not all out extinction.

I think humans by themselves cannot be blamed for this. It is human society that is the problem. The culture of hierarchy and category, where all things are studied and ranked in importance. Even people who want to do good generally fall victim to this type of thinking. For instance, the environmentalist will fight for the environment, but will not look at the human cost. The humanitarian will want to alleviate poverty without looking at the environmental cost.
Tribes that depend on the land are very wise - they know that all things are interconnected, and the importance of a single being cannot be studied in isolation from the rest of the environment. We, with our technology and knowledge, are generally as powerless in relation to the world as our ancient ancestors with their stone tools.

Originally posted by cartesia
I'm not saying humans arent destroying habitats/ecosystems/food chains/etc,

but its important to remember we will never have any information about the 'natural' extinction rate of species.

Well really everything is natural. We seem to think because we grabbed up a bunch of materials and learned to burn things we're somehow separate from nature. We're all still atoms.

Us killing off other species is perfectly natural. Just as a wolf or a virus would kill off other species. We're just able to do it on a much greater scale. And we also have the ability to mitigate our impact by being smarter with our use of resources. So it doesn't really matter what the 'natural' or 'non-human interaction' extinction rate is, I think we can agree it would be lower.

Until a natural asteroid comes of course.

Originally posted by Irako
We, with our technology and knowledge, are generally as powerless in relation to the world as our ancient ancestors with their stone tools.

That's not entirely true. We have technology that enables us to cause greater harm to the world through pollution and over-hunting. But we also have technology that can protect species, air quality and water quality. We also have political systems in place that enable all of us to have an impact in determining how we focus and use that technology. And each one of us can use less water, energy and recycle to lessen our personal impact on the environment.

We can actually very powerfully impact our world by concentrating on building technologies to clean and grow and improve the world, or concentrate on technologies that pollute and destroy and kill the world. So far we've mostly chosen the latter but we are slowly turning towards the former.

People thinking that the former represents a grand conspiracy to take away your rights are part of the problem.

reply to post by evictiongnostic


When I say that humans are powerless I mean in relation to the complexities of our world. We can't predict the effects of our actions, whether they be positive or negative. For instance, how does the growing number of wealthy elite in China effect the numbers of rhinos in Africa? How does poverty of human populations near those rhino habitats effect the number of poachers in the area? If we police the hunting of rhinos, how does it effect the local economy? If we create a wild life reservation, who do we have to displace?
My point wasn't that we should just not do anything. Its that we need to stop being reactionary. We need to respect the complexities of the world, and think before we act. Too many times, I've seen people with good intentions get tunnel vision and ignore all issues but the one they are fighting for.

reply to post by Teikeon


I'm not sure I understand what you mean...

It is ok for Mother Nature to selectively eliminate the creations brought forth by her and her mate - the Universe? However, it is not OK for humans to be a leading catalyst for the demise of Earthly species?

I don't understand the dis-association of humans from Mother Nature, as we too are creations from her and her mate. Anything we destroy as a species is the will of Mother Nature herself. We are not separate entities, we do not hail from outside this reality, nor do we exist of matter belonging to another realm. We are not only products of Mother Nature and her Mate, the Universe, we are Mother Nature and her mate.

When Mother Nature knows we have gone awry of her plans, she will birth a new dynamic into nature; a dynamic that will challenge the very existence of humans, sending us to our potential extinction. When that time comes, I wonder if the new dynamic will have remorse/regret, disgust, empathy, self condemnation, or compassion for the demise they bring upon us? Will they view themselves as a product of something other than Mother Nature herself? I wonder if they will realize they too are next in line on Mother Nature's Checks and Balances?

reply to post by esteay812


Just out of curiosity, are you implying that "mother nature" is conscious?

reply to post by ParovStelar


Why did they fail to protect these species? Who was in charge of the protection?

reply to post by ParovStelar





It depends on what you consider consciousness to be and what you believe is comprised to create Mother Nature.

Also dependent on you is how surprised you may be to learn just how many people consider Earth a living organism.

My idea of Mother Nature and the Universe, independently, might be something like this;

- Mother Nature includes all aspects of reality currently in place and the interaction between those differing aspects that create the ever-evolving physical and mental reality.

- In this scenario, the Universe is the construct in which Mother Nature exists. It is built upon fundamental laws that dictate Mother Nature's potential for creation and evolution.

As far as Mother Nature being independently conscious, I have no real opinion on the possibility or improbability of this being the truth. I do think it is possible, but nothing like the consciousness we experience. Although, I can't be certain of that, simply because I can not identify how such a thing would even function.

S%F. I always snf these kind of threads if I see them. I believe our human behavior is bad for this world. Our desires cause most of this destruction. The earth can handle our needs well. Most people don't understand that what they consider needs are actually wants. We have been conditioned by the economy well.