Species Die-out: our job to fix that or foolish delusion of man's role in life?

[Dave McAllister]

Talking about the common occurence of fake replicas of things from frogs and elephants to Gucci handbags and pictures, there was a daughter topic that deserves it's own forum:


Asher, correct if I'm wrong (and I may be), but you seem to imply that being surrounded by beauty impels people to think more deeply about their surroundings. I think I would tend to disagree with that. In today's information age I think people often think less about where they are and what they are doing than they need to. People have come to expect beauty around them and don't stop to appreciate it. The only "shock value" comes when something that doesn't fit their mold of beauty comes into their life. When things do fit their mold of beauty, those things are seen and then forgotten.

On a side note, and slightly off-topic (maybe), in the article on frogs quoted on page one there is mention that scientists are taking certain frogs to zoos and other places to guarantee the species survival. I often wonder if this is the right thing to do. I can see taking some samples to make sure we have specimen to study down the road, but when endangered animals are released back into natural wildlife settings to re-establish a foothold in the ecosystem, I wonder if that isn't changing the equation in a profound way. They're going extinct for a reason. While that reason may or may not be us, I wonder if it's wrong to try to fight the natural order of things. That seems to be the human condition, or predicament, as far as I can tell. What to do?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher, correct if I'm wrong (and I may be), but you seem to imply that being surrounded by beauty impels people to think more deeply about their surroundings. I think I would tend to disagree with that. In today's information age I think people often think less about where they are and what they are doing than they need to. People have come to expect beauty around them and don't stop to appreciate it. The only "shock value" comes when something that doesn't fit their mold of beauty comes into their life. When things do fit their mold of beauty, those things are seen and then forgotten.

Hi Dave,

Physiology trumps boredom. We still react to the beauty of a child's face, the handsome patina in a farmer's face or the rose opened in full bloom.

On a side note, and slightly off-topic (maybe), in the article on frogs quoted on page one there is mention that scientists are taking certain frogs to zoos and other places to guarantee the species survival. I often wonder if this is the right thing to do. I can see taking some samples to make sure we have specimen to study down the road, but when endangered animals are released back into natural wildlife settings to re-establish a foothold in the ecosystem, I wonder if that isn't changing the equation in a profound way. They're going extinct for a reason. While that reason may or may not be us, I wonder if it's wrong to try to fight the natural order of things. That seems to be the human condition, or predicament, as far as I can tell. What to do?

Dave,

We are facing massive species loss partly because of things we do. In the case of amphibians, there's a fungus infecting the creatures world wide that is making things worse. There's loss of habitat as humans wipe out their territories and clear the forrest floors on vegetation and debris which protects them. There is no book of instruction that came with us taking control over the planet's near term destiny. We can either allow things to happen and lose most of the frogs, toads, newts, salamanders and such or try to conserve as many as possible.

"The natural order of things" is not any moral nor other persuasive argument. We already have gone beyond that and that history cannot be retraced. Life is declining and is a measure of the risks we ourselves face.

Asher