Hvorfor bør utrydningstruede dyrearter bevares?

[roo_fan]

Yes, but I don't want cocroaches as pets, neither some yellow thee-eyed fish ^^

[VVolfsong]

The interesting thing with all this is that, when one race dies out, another one is born. We just can't see it because it's so small, or hidden away deep down in some cave.

I believe you're wrong. When one species dies, no new one magically crawls out from some secluded cavern somewhere. It just doesn't work that way. Yes, in natural evolution eventually some other animal might change its behaviour to cover the void left by the lost species, and in time evolve into a new seperate species, but the key word here is time. It takes a lot of it. We're talking hundreds to thousands of years here. Humans can wipe out hundreds of species in a matter of just a few years. There's not enough time for natural evolution to take place.

Everything is all nature, less humans means more "animals", more humans means /less/ "animals". It's a neat balance.

If we chop down a forrest and kill thousands of animals, we did it because some large corporation that only cares about money decided to do it. It had absolutely nothing to do with nature or the balance between humans and animals in the area. Even if the numbers of humans in the world was to start decreasing we'd still be chopping down those forrests because someone would make money of it. Quite simply, man is no longer a part of nature in the same way the other animals are. We are the only creature on this planet with the power to decide what species lives or dies, and in some cases how they evolve (selective breeding), and thus change nature's balance at will.

It only really /looks/ like we are killing off all life, but we're not. Even if we nuke the world, lifeforms will continue to exist. There will be things that are resistant to nuclear radiation. Life will never /end/, it will only change.

That cind of logic is dangerous. It can be used to justify us killing whatever we want to and not give a damn, because if we did then nature intended us to do it, or because something will outlive us then its ok to kill everything else. I know your point was that life will find a way, but it is still a dangerous logic to use in a discussion imho.

[Jhansi]

All good points there VVolfsong. I didn't think about all that when i was writing:)

There's really nothing to say on the things you said. Meaningless arguements on things based on what i /think/ is right isn't really something i'm interested in doing. You seem to know your stuff, so i might learn something^^,

About my second point there. Read it more in the bigger scheme. You're thinking minor changes in the number of people while i was aiming more to those deadly things that whipe out 75% of the human race and such:)

Nothing to really say about the logic thing... Agreed:)

EDIT: Oh, i'm glad i could drag you back to the thread btw^^,

[Youngbull]

There is one solution to the whole dump the garbage thing. But i doubt it will be done, because even tho it may seem flawless at first. I have my doubts it is.
This Theory is to develop cheap rockets to load up with all the garbage and shoot it out into space. But not just anywhere. Into the burning furnace of our sun.
1. Drawback is that we do simply not know what certain kinds of material may cause some consequences for the radiation of the sun.
2. Drawback is that the rockets would still be too expensive in the long run. Not to mention all the gas (Oil) we would have to 'waste' on this effort.
3. Drawback is who would finance this? it's a risky business, and tho it's an unchallenged market, it will be a loss no matter what way one looks at it. Either economically or by ways of resources.
BTW. By garbage I mean everything that can not be recycled, or decomposed.
However it has it's plus, as long as one looks away from the drawbacks and potential consequences (Which one shouldn't)
1. We would have a place to burn our litter without worrying about our own atmosphere (Most likely we will have selected void planets to use for this some day.)
2. We would greatly decrease the amount of garbage dumped everywhere else on our beautiful planet.

Again, don't forget about consequences. But this is just to answer the waste problem.

As to the animals (which would be more on topic i believe)

Indeed. Evolution will take centuries upon millenniums to make the necessary changes. Usually it is done by a certain animal recognizes the steadily decreasing number of another animal, and tries to make up for what is being lost. However this will take millenniums to happen. And at the rate we're creating these voids, nature is being cast into a spin of confusion and chaos. There's no way it can cover the losses in time, and thus as a predator is lost, the prey will grow too many and overgrow the natural resources. Then it will usually spread to another area, intrude on other animals terrain and wreak havoc of their area as well. And in time once all resources are spent, and after countless other species are lost. The race will soon perish and death and void will cover what is left.

Sounds apocalyptic doesn't it? Well that's because it is.
And to have said it. HUMAN beings are one sort of valid example as to the prey in this situation. ("Sort of" as in we do not know what caused the devastation of our predators) We used to be monkeys, with tails. That's why we have the tailbone, and that's why you don't have a tail btw. We lost our need for a tail and evolved. Without our natural predator we no longer had to hang from the trees with our tails.

We do however still have the "survival of the fittest" attitude left from that time, along with the fear of falling. (also known as the dreams where we think we're falling, and for indescribable reasons actually feel like we are. it's buried deep in our instincts) And our attitude is harming the world in more ways than most people can comprehend.

Let me just say that if one thinks there is nothing wrong with what we've been doing by running species extinct over our own greed and sometimes even fear. They are sorrily mistaken. These extinctions are OUR responsibility. We HAVE to take responsibility for our actions. That's the 1 thing that makes you truly "grown up", to be able to take responsibility. This is a widely known fact around the world.

Killing a wolf for trying to survive, is like killing a farmer for growing crops. That's one strong argument I'm surprised no one have really used before. And I believe it might  strike the farmers hardest. (tho they're usually too dumb to get the point, no offense to any farmer here. I talk about the ones going after the wolf that took a single one of his stray sheep)
To say that killing wild animals "To keep their numbers down" is right, is like saying war is justifiable because it helps keep the number of humans down.


Finishing statement:
I believe it was once said that "Ignorance is the downfall of humankind"

[Quintus]

"I agree, we /should/ clean up after ourselves, but where can we put it so that it won't be dangerous? We can't... There is no place on our planet to store it so that it won't be dangerous. No matter where we put it, it will be like a nuclear plant and it will need constant supervision. And it's not like the material will ever /stop/ being a danger. We will have to look over it /forever/. "

Det er ikke helt korrekt, Uran og plutonium har riktig nokk ganske lang halverings tid på radiokative strålingen sin, men til slutt så vil all uran og plutonium bli til bly og da er det helt ufarlig Men det er snakk om flere 100.000 år til da

Det skom skjer når Uran foreksempel blir til bly er at urankjernen mister protoner og nøytroner helt til det det har mistet så mange at stoffet har blitt stabilt, det stråler ikke lengere og det har blitt til bly

Radiokativ stråling bestå av 3 typer "Alpa" "beta" og "gamma"

"alpa" strålingen består av en nøytron og en proton som farer sammen igjenom lufta ne (helium kjerne faktisk), i og med at den består av en nøytron og en proton så stoppes den lett ved huden. men det må ikke spises mat uansett som er radioaktiv, for innenfra er vi dårlig beskyttet mot stråling.

"Beta" er hakke fraligere den består av et elektron som skilles ut fra en spaltet proton. protonet blir da delt i et elektron og et nøytron.
I og med at elektronet er mindre en protonet og nøytronet så kan den trenge lengere inn i kroppen vår eller dyr og forårsake skader.

"gamma" er den aller farligeste, gamma strålingen oppstår oftest ved spalting av urankjerner nermere bestemt i "beta" prosessen i form av ren energi i et radioaktiv kraftverk. gamma stråingen går igjennom absålutt nesten alt

Masse mengder stråling kan føre til mutasjoner av arvematerialet vårt og ødelegging av celler osv kan forårsake kreft.

Hvis du føler deg uvell og spyr opp gul/hvit veske fra magen så kom deg på sykehus, for da er set spontant radioaktivsyke, det var det mange som opplevde rundt Tjernobyl verket når det gikk i liufta.

Så hvis man lagrer den utbrente uranen inne i fjell så er det sikkert nokk, men plass kan jo bli ett problem selvfølgelig om tider.
Å sende det ut i verdensrommet så er det svindyrt, men hva skal vi med penger når verden er ødelagt? jo kjøpe en ny planet

[Quintus]

Miles T.F. Baxxter  Det er klokt av deg å spørre om argumenter i saken du skal skrive særemne om, hvis man drar en konklusjon i en sak bare fra den ene siden av saken, så sier utfalle seg selv av koklusjonen før man har vudert sysnpungtene.

Hvis man bare hører på den ene siden av saken og sier at sånn er det, så har vedkomende gjort en dårlig vurdering. 

[Alyxx]

Mange utrydningstruede dyrearter er viktige for økosystemet.

[roo_fan]

Jeg er uenig i at Gamma - strålingen er aller farligst. Den er riktignok mest gjennomotrengende, men hvis kilden er inne i kroppen(Svelget,drukket etc.) Så vil den stråle ut med minimalt vevsskade, siden gammastrålingen er minst ioniserende av de tre. Aller farligst for kroppen vil jeg si er alfastrålingen, den ioniserer mest (gjør mest skade på kroppen) og inntas lettere. Og i det stadiet av strålesyke du beskriver, er det lite vits å oppsøke lege... Og dessutten det offisielle tallet på døde av stråling ved Chornobyl er 79 personer, mange av dem servicepersonell... Og tallet på krefttilfeller varierer veldig mye.

(Sorry hvis det ble litt off-topic her)