posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by ForbiddenDesire
I wanted to add that some species of animals, plants, ect. die off in nature's way - then stupid man comes and tries to save things, or clone
dinosaurs? - isn't there a very good reason they are extinct?
edit on 28-8-2013 by Happy1 because: (no reason given)
I am with you on that. But it's complicated.
A interesting story: people cleaned water of a river or canal but the species had adapted to the polluted water and so the cleaning of it hurt the
species. (on the other hand, certain species really can't go without clean water)
In the Netherlands a lot of money is spend on specific species. Some of them need old farming methods and aren't really natural anyway. I would be
okay with them going locally extinct. A lot of species are least concern worldwide, like the European hamster (needs specific old farmland) and Black
Grouse (also somewhat depended on farming).
I don't think species should be reintroduced solely for the reason they lived there once. I find it justified however if it benefits other species.
Now what's problematic is that ecosystems are weaved into connections. One extinction may lead to others.
It can also be bad for humans. The Chinese did the Four Pests Campaign
, which failed horribly. I think the use of pesticides will fail on the
long-term, the bee extinction is one side effect and the rise of pesticide resistant weeds and pests is another.
But nature is adaptable. If the adaption will be fun for humans I don't know. All I can say is what has been stated in a movie, see 2:25:
edit on 29-8-2013 by ForbiddenDesire because: (no reason given)