[HN Gopher] U.S. agency declares 21 species now extinct
___________________________________________________________________
U.S. agency declares 21 species now extinct
Author : janandonly
Score : 138 points
Date : 2023-11-19 15:56 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.pbsnc.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.pbsnc.org)
| gmuslera wrote:
| I think has been calculated already that in the order of tens of
| species get extinct daily. And the rate is growing. Putting a
| spotlight in some particular ones a single day won't stop the
| drain that we are causing in numbers much higher than the ones
| show here.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| I think part of the point is that we tried to save these
| specific species and failed. That doesn't bode well that we
| can't even intentionally save species from extinction.
| bmitc wrote:
| And from the comment about the Bachman's warbler, its
| extinction process started over half a century ago. So we're
| already lagging this problem by decades if not centuries at
| this point.
| bakergo wrote:
| Since I didn't see it linked in the article, the announcement:
| https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/17/2023-22...
|
| 10 (half) of the 21 species were in Hawaii, several of the other
| species were mussels
| spondylosaurus wrote:
| Half-expected to see vaquitas on this list... sounds like they're
| still holding on, at least for now :(
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| That might partially because it takes a very very long time
| before a species is declared extinct. The actual document[1] is
| interesting because it includes some responses to peer
| reviewers and goes more into methodology. The species that were
| just declared extinct haven't been seen for decades. In some
| cases, the animal has probably actually been extinct for 50+
| years, they're just (understandably) very cautious about
| declaring it. It would be awkward to have another coelacanth
| situation.
|
| 1:
| https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/17/2023-22...
| bmitc wrote:
| That's a good point, although in this case you can count the
| number of wild vaquitas on two hands. I imagine it's much
| harder for birds, insects, and fish, but for dolphins, they
| stay by the coast and need air. I can't imagine a species
| coming back from such low numbers.
| contingencies wrote:
| Scrolled down past the mussels and there's a warbler. Shame to
| think the last warble has warbled. Hope they got a recording.
| Repeat after me people: _don 't buy cats_.
| kergonath wrote:
| And don't destroy forests, and hedges, and swamps, and
| mangroves. And be considerate when you build roads.
| WillyF wrote:
| "Destroyed" forest are perfect Warbler habitat--at least for
| the Kirtland's Warbler which requires dense areas of young
| jack pine. That means either fires or logging are essential
| to their survival. So if you mean don't pave over forests,
| then yes. But logging done properly is essential for a lot of
| species.
| titzer wrote:
| > But logging done properly is essential for a lot of
| species.
|
| Hard disagree here. These species survived in niches carved
| out by forest fires and ruminants that keep open
| grasslands, prairies, and other in-between states from
| endlessly sprouting forests. Obviously they survived for
| millions of years before man came to North America.
|
| The natural carbon cycle where trees grow, live, reproduce,
| then die and decay, to be food for endless levels of
| fungus, insects, worms, grubs, etc, which in turn feed
| birds, snakes, frogs...I could go on, but I think you miss
| how utterly disruptive it is just to remove the dead tree
| trunks from an environment.
|
| Sustainable logging looks OK in the 50-100 year timeframe;
| it's one of many lies we tell ourselves. If it worked for
| Grandpa then it'll work for us. Maybe the soil quality
| holds up in the long run, maybe not? But make no mistake,
| logging has a vast impact and permanently alters
| ecosystems. Do logged forests slowly decline over centuries
| as their soil is depleted? Hmm...
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Can we please arrive at a more systemic root cause
| proclamation rather than "stop doing the destruction"? How
| about some 5 Whys analysis?
| calmworm wrote:
| You're blaming cats?
| contingencies wrote:
| Domestic cats are the primary killer of small animals,
| period.
| 7373737373 wrote:
| Maybe it's time, beside the Global Seed Vault, to have a Global
| Species Vault?
| wincy wrote:
| Like an Ark?
| clnq wrote:
| Human violence and lack of morality causes a flood/rising sea
| levels and now we're talking about an Ark where the
| enlightened will spare the other animals from destruction
| that is for humanity to face.
|
| Way to pollute the planet so much the bible becomes an
| instruction manual lol (no offense to believers, just a joke)
| undersuit wrote:
| What if it's easier to reverse our current course of action
| than to make a vault of all the animals? I mean even just
| collecting sperm and embryos from lizards seems kinda insane.
| Amphibian, fish, mollusk, and insect species are far more
| numerous and at far more risk.
| kbenson wrote:
| I would assume you would just take genetic samples in the
| easiest, and most durable form.
|
| I think the answer to your question is that if it's easier to
| reverse our course then a bunch of species will be dead with
| no way to revive them. Easier does not mean easy, and
| reversing course is IMO next to impossible, so it bei g
| harder than that just means it won't happen.
| undersuit wrote:
| So it's not a vault it's a digital archive. Still the
| action of scanning in the DNA for future use. Just on
| lizards still, biggest project humanities ever taken.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| I love the sentiment but the time to reverse our course was
| probably in the 60s. We've fiddled with all the knobs and
| dials and we're in charge of the problem now.
|
| We wanted to play God and now we've been given the chance :)
| undersuit wrote:
| But we still have to reverse course.
| labster wrote:
| Building a giant vault is definitely easier than convincing
| people to change the way they live. Putting aside whether the
| book of Genesis is literally true or not, the tale of Noah's
| Ark certainly describes how people behave correctly.
| throwitaway222 wrote:
| I don't think you can just freeze a packet of aardvarks like
| that.
| fnord77 wrote:
| frozen embryos
| pmags wrote:
| Unfortunately few animal gametes are as hardy as those of
| plants and fungi. In terms of a record of genetic and
| phenotypic diversity, the global network of natural history
| museums (at least those with research arms), largely play this
| role.
|
| <sarcasm> As soon as we figure out how to rejuvenate extinct
| species from their DNA records we should all be good ... <wink>
| </sarcasm>
| d_sem wrote:
| This is a reminder that the carrying capacity of a healthy planet
| is much less than 8 billion people and radical change will be the
| only solution.
|
| We could do with fewer people. In 2000 there was ~6.1 billion and
| the world was just fine.
| xupybd wrote:
| In 2000 people were predicting the end of the world. They
| didn't think it was fine then just as much as you don't think
| it's fine now.
| jklinger410 wrote:
| > the carrying capacity of a healthy planet is much less than 8
| billion people
|
| Not sure what you are citing for this, but I would assume this
| is less than 8 billion people based on our current pollution
| and consumption rates.
|
| This stat is a mind-blowing one also considering the sheer
| amount of empty space still available on the planet. With good
| resource management and terraforming you'd think this number
| would be a lot larger.
| lebean wrote:
| Most of us are doing alright, relatively speaking.
| abletonlive wrote:
| >In 2000 there was ~6.1 billion and the world was just fine.
|
| This entire comment is junk assertions based on nothing but
| this part is hilarious in particular.
| nosefurhairdo wrote:
| Call me crazy, but I value 2 billion human lives above that of
| a few endangered bird species.
| edhelas wrote:
| And I value 2 billions more as well.
|
| And 2 billions more.
|
| And...
| bmitc wrote:
| That Bachman's warbler is beautiful. Such a shame.
|
| > "The bird had a 'buzzy' song, and the song added to the beauty
| of the bird, and when combined that added to the magic of North
| Carolina. We lost a little magic when we lost the species. And
| what's really sad is that the Bachman's warbler was abundant at
| the turn of the 20thcentury, but by 1950 it was noted as one of
| the rarest birds in North America."
|
| This hurts, especially knowing that it's a story that we've
| unfortunately told a thousand times in the past hundred years.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| -- is ++ was
| heartbreak wrote:
| I wonder what the story is behind the Getty photo of it in that
| article. It doesn't look like a photo that could have been
| taken in the 60s or the 80s. Does that mean it's misidentified
| on Getty?
| bmitc wrote:
| That's an interesting point. I'm not sure as I'm not familiar
| with the bird. After some searching it seems it could be a
| different apecies in that photo. It seems the depictions of
| the Bachman's warbler show it to have more black on top. I
| have no idea though.
| m4jor wrote:
| Isn't this just how life on Earth works tho?
|
| >Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are
| now extinct.
| bmitc wrote:
| No, not really. The _rate_ of extinction has skyrocketed
| above the baseline extinction rate in the last 100-200 years,
| and it has a very specific and known cause: human
| industrialization and spread.
| janalsncm wrote:
| I'm pretty sure I'm plagiarizing from somewhere, but there's a
| certain distinct sadness in being the last songbird of your
| species: singing a mating call that no other creature will heed,
| no matter how skillfully it is sung. When it dies, the world has
| a little less joy than before.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| My theory is that humans inject this into it. My observation
| and feelings are that animals see themselves as part of a much
| larger whole and don't worry too much about being the "final
| whatever", it's just a concept.
|
| Ironically it's our quest to not be the last songbird that
| seems to keep ruining the planet for the songbirds.
| jstanley wrote:
| > animals see themselves as part of a much larger whole
|
| I really don't think animals pay any attention to abstract
| concepts like this at all.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Let me rephrase actually. They don't think it. They just
| know it. They don't live in constant anxiety like us.
| jstanley wrote:
| I think most prey animals in fact _do_ live in a constant
| state of anxiety.
| titzer wrote:
| I see you have not met my friend's dog.
| lolinder wrote:
| I think we humans overestimate how unique we are. We're at
| the top of a wide spectrum of intelligence, but it's
| startling the degree to which even secularly-minded people
| see our species as different _in kind_ than the rest of the
| animal kingdom--I normally associate that kind of human
| exceptionalism with religion.
|
| I'm not familiar enough with birds to speak about them, but
| other mammalian species _absolutely_ understand loneliness,
| and understand the difference between having human friends
| and having friends of their same species.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| I'm actually more in agreement with you than I think you
| realise. We are not "special" at all. We have no right
| making other species go extinct. Animals for sure feeling
| suffering, loneliness, sadness etc.
|
| That fact we've caused this level of suffering is abhorrent
| to me.
|
| I agree that other animals feel loneliness too. But not the
| same level of anxiety about "what if I don't exist, or my
| species or bloodline" doesn't go on.
|
| This level of anxiety is reserved for us, in the same way
| we're worried about the stock market or economy not growing
| year on year. This is our gift.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > But not the same level of anxiety about "what if I
| don't exist, or my species or bloodline" doesn't go on.
|
| To some extent, sure. But I think some of this is us
| habituating to pets who were sterilized prior to puberty.
| In post-pubertal animals the drives to have and rear
| children are pretty strong.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| > We are not "special" at all. We have no right making
| other species go extinct
|
| That is self contradictory. A lot of species go extinct
| due to other species.
|
| If we don't have that "right", that makes us special.
| ben_w wrote:
| Rights are a fiction we made up for our own benefit, like
| money and the abstract concept of fish.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >I think we humans overestimate how unique we are.
|
| That a lot of us _refuse_ to see ourselves as part of the
| animal kingdom is indication enough.
|
| Let's also not forget our pompous assumption that only
| humans can make and use tools (debunked), only humans can
| feel emotions (debunked), and so on.
|
| If something ferocious ever comes around to knock humanity
| down several pegs, it will be very deserved.
| softg wrote:
| I mean is it that unreasonable to think that humans are
| radically different from any other species we know?
| Because we obviously are. I don't see any dogs writing on
| this forum to dispute the uniqueness of humans any time
| soon. There are clearly many things that we humans can do
| and no other animal can.
|
| "Deserved" is a human concept. Pretty much all 'smart'
| animals (orcas, dolphins, bonobos, etc.) engage in
| extremely cruel behaviors towards other species or even
| to their kind. We're the only ones who are having moral
| qualms over it (and we should).
| appplication wrote:
| I agree with you that I think there is some fundamental
| truth with humans not being any different than animals, or
| really plants, etc for that matter. That life is a
| stubborn, collective, anti-entropic force fighting - for a
| bit at least - against the cold eventuality of the
| universe. And in that picture it's difficult to place
| humans as logically superior to or separate from any other
| force of life.
|
| On the other hand, I have a hard time squaring that with
| practical morality. If all life is equally valuable, we all
| commit the crime of murder just to eat and survive. That
| does not feel quite right. And if we say that life is maybe
| not so valuable, then does it mean the crime of murder
| itself is not wrong? I think that also doesn't feel right.
|
| So maybe it's not that _all_ life is _equally_ valuable,
| but rather _life is valuable_. Equality is a human
| construction, after all - unchecked nature is much more
| vicious in dealing with inequality in the margins. Life
| consumes life, that is how it is. It is a cycle that
| doesn't quite repeat, and there is no destruction of life
| in sustenance, only transformation.
|
| And maybe that is what happens when one species - or a
| million - dies out. Perhaps that is nature's brutal
| callousness in action, and as such is a perfectly natural
| thing to happen. I don't think I quite like that either.
|
| Every time I have a deep think on the way things are, I'm
| reminded of the Buddhists, who I think found at least some
| truth in it all: "life is suffering". I'm not sure there's
| much more to it than that.
| ben_w wrote:
| They may or may not see themselves as "the last one", but
| that's independent from them being lonely because of it.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRaC2Rx3BVY
| cosmojg wrote:
| Oh man, I haven't teared up that heavily in a while. That has
| to be one of the saddest sounds I've ever heard.
| mullingitover wrote:
| Command+F "mosquito"
|
| _sigh_
|
| It's wild how this news is basically a non-story, people don't
| care about "oops we accidentally did a bunch of extinctions"
|
| ...but people will _riot_ if you launch a project to
| intentionally wipe out the single most deadly insect species in
| the history of humanity (and one that 's not even a keystone
| species!).
| xvilka wrote:
| Mosquito while being biggest killer of all, still has an
| important role in a food chain as a water predator in its
| larvae phase.
| nerpderp82 wrote:
| They also move nutrients down the foodchain. Just because we
| don't like them doesn't mean they don't serve an important
| purpose in the web of life.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| Yes, it would have an impact on the ecosystem. We could study
| the potential impact, and decide whether it was more or less
| of a concern than the number of lives lost to mosquito-borne
| diseases.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-19 23:00 UTC)