Extinction by man

Often when there is reference to the extinction of species caused by human activity, there are those who claim that "this is the way of the world, and extinctions are a natural necessity since time immemorial". is that so?

Often when there is reference to the extinction of species caused by human activity, there are those who claim that "this is the way of the world, and extinctions are a natural necessity since time immemorial". is that so?

Why do species that are becoming extinct in our world in our time arouse such tumultuous "excitement" among environmentalists? David Shukman writes and presents environmental programs on the BBC network. Refers to the topic: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21866456. Below are his words with slight changes and combining my comments and additions.

"What's wrong with extinction? A question that for environmentalists is a landmine or an "elephant trap". The question is asked because sometimes the harsh reality of the story of life on our planet is forgotten. We tend to forget that extinctions are a reality that has returned regularly and sometimes even to the benefit of the survivors. The extinction of the dinosaurs allowed the rapid development of mammals, the simplification of the human species and climate change caused the disappearance of the terrestrial giants. There is no doubt that our situation is more comfortable without predatory dinosaurs and without saber-toothed tigers, or insects the size of eagles. The ancient hunters avoided the skirmish with the giant predators for the meat of the mammoths, so the extinction of certain species is actually a positive aspect for our species.

The question of extinction came up in early March at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The purpose of this convention is to save species from the corrupting effect of the wild trade, the slaughter of rhinoceros, the killing of elephants, the extinction of the last tigers, and other species that are on the verge of extinction and their situation was discussed extensively and was a central topic in the discussions at the "Convention" conference that was held in Bangkok.

When you become aware of the shocking statistics about the loss of species through extinctions in the past and when you hear the protests and campaign to prevent the killing and harming of species today, you can be forgiven for thinking that extinction is a bad thing invented only by the greed and indifference of the human race, and yet it is worth stating and clarifying that some of the more terrible examples of extinctions They are indeed the result of the activity of the human race, sometimes out of indifference and sometimes in distraction.

Extinctions have been part of the natural order throughout the history of our planet. The most famous of the extinctions was the extinction of the dinosaurs. Four more extinctions were identified and described, one of which destroyed 90% of all species. It can be said that the "restless" animal world agitates and inspires ventures in which nothing lasts forever, while at the same time "background extinction" takes place. Species disappear every year, creatures are lost and plants disappear, losses that are not "spectacular"... in fact these are losses that have become routine.

As a result, the lifespan of a species lasts on average about a million years. Mammal species have the shortest survival length, molluscs live for about five million years, there are some single survivors that live for tens of millions of years. The Homo sapiens species has existed for less than two hundred thousand years and is making giant strides toward self-destruction. The plain truth is that the animal world is restless and does not survive forever. Almost every species that has ever existed is dead and gone.

It is worth stopping to absorb the meaning of the last paragraph: about 99% of the species that lived in the sea or on land, species of animals, insects or plants, formed an episode in the life of the globe and then disappeared into the abyss of femininity. A few left their mark as fossils that are displayed in museums, others disappeared without a trace.

Darwin wrote about extinctions in his book "The Origin of Species". For him, the process of evolution is the taking over of new species when others lose their place and disappear. Darwin certainly did not mourn the "losers" who passed away.

The Guildan turtle is a long-time survivor and so is the hustle and bustle of activity to preserve it, the hustle and bustle surrounding the activity to preserve "symbol species", species that are a symbol for the preservation of the entire natural environment. Should we be more "practical" in our ability to intervene? Is it possible the embarrassing fact that we won't be able to save everything?

It is clear that "captivating" creatures, with big eyes and soft fur, attract the most attention of the general public, therefore the chances of projects to preserve them are better. But what about insects, molluscs, worms and others that are not "nice"?

Is it necessary to change the emphasis if the extinction is our fault, is it necessary to behave differently when the loss of species is accelerated because of us? It is our fault and because of us because habitats are destroyed, the air and the sea are polluted, and species are being slaughtered. Is there a need for special treatment in light of the fact that the list of species is disappearing due to increasing human activity?

One of the well-known representatives of the species we destroyed is Lonesome George. The last giant deer of its kind in the Galapagos, on the island where its kind lived, all the plants were eaten and fed by goats brought by sailors. The turtle eggs were eaten by rats that arrived on the ships, the turtles themselves were put on the ships as "meat cans", on the way. And so when "lonely George" died - sex was eradicated. An extinction for which the human race is to blame.

Over the years, the attitude towards the natural world has changed. A change that is not equivalent in different regions, because when a poor villager in Africa hunts an elephant to sell its meat and tusks... it is "easy money". When his neighbors hunt monkeys or antelopes, they enrich their menu with animal proteins and their pockets with a little money from selling the meat in the market. For the Chinese, ivory has cultural importance and rhinoceros horns have medicinal (albeit incorrect) importance. Conservation of the environment and nature are considered new ideas. The use of rhino horns and elephant tusks is rooted in centuries-old traditions. It is worth remembering that ivory was one of the most important components of trade conducted during the British Empire. And yet the sight of a cargo of ivory smuggled to Bangkok (Thailand) catching fire is a difficult sight. The stench that rises from the fire was defined by the Thai customs officers as the "smell of death".

When Darwin treated extinctions he did so without sentimentality. So what are the arguments for trying to stop extinction? One claim is "simply" selfish and economic. For example: if all the tuna fish are caught and netted, thousands of people in the fishing industry will lose their livelihood. If all the elephants or lions are shot, tourism will lose one of its important sources of income.

Extinction will cost us a lot of money. Moreover, there may be unexpected effects due to the loss of "key species". The loss of one plant or one creature in the food chain affects the entire food chain on the entire system in a way that is not yet clear or understood. For example: when there are too few tigers in Thailand, the moose will multiply, which will cause the destruction of vegetation and trees, the destruction of trees will cause severe damage to the habitats of bird and monkey species, birds and monkeys spread the seeds of fruit trees, fruit trees grow fruit that is eaten by people, and again, direct damage in a human population.

Another argument for the need to preserve the natural environment is moral, as the "strongest" species on earth we bear the responsibility not to exterminate other species, especially when the extinction is done out of whim, indifference or ignorance. In other words "the crown of creation" "the chosen species" those who place themselves "at the top of the evolutionary tree" must accept responsibility for the weaker species. It is worth remembering that the scriptures of various religions place the responsibility for the existence and survival of animals and plants on the "treasure of creation", as the "chosen" man is obligated to take care of all species.

Finally, the human race is the first to acquire the knowledge that "all living species carry the DNA molecules." This is the common denominator of all of us. We look different from ants, spiders, snails or snakes, but we are all close to them. Very broadly we are all members of the same family, meaning that the threat of extinction hangs over our relatives, which illuminates our role in a completely different light.

This argument obliges us to preserve the natural environment and prevent the extinction we cause. A wise man said that: "Only when the last tree is cut down, only when the last river is polluted, only when the last fish is caught in the net, only then will man understand that you cannot eat money." Let's hope he was wrong and that understanding is already seeping in.