Lion numbers have dropped by 90% in 20 years. The other big cats are going fast. How long before all the Earth's 'mega species' disappear from the wild?

Even the most conservative biologists tell a bleak story: this, they say, is the sixth great extinction of life in the history of the planet. The first five extinctions, recorded in the ancient rocks, were all natural: from volcanic catastrophe, climate change, asteroid impact, or even deadly radiation from an exploding star. But this one, they all agree, is the unwitting work of humankind.

Very interesting article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1053445,00.html).

It's still "natural", whether it is due to ice ages, asteroids, or humankind. And it just makes more room for our dominion; we are, after all, the superior species.

They said it, I didn't. Just copied and pasted. But, I think some of the things the human race does are not natural though. Dumping chemicals into the water resources is certainly not a natural occurance for example.

It's still "natural", whether it is due to ice ages, asteroids, or humankind. And it just makes more room for our dominion; we are, after all, the superior species.

Yeah, superior at screwing up the planet.

Superior at: spewing filth into the air, creating chemicals that eat up the ozone, industrial mass cattle farming (that wouldn't have happened 100 years ago) , creating plastics, encroaching on other animal's territory and killing them off if they come onto our lawn, etc...

I agree with MsRuthie that these are not natural occurances.

i think kurm was joking :p

but it's a good point... what exactly is natural? all species change their environment one way or another. why is it that when beavers change their environment it's natural, but when a human does it, it's not? where do you draw the line? and why say that what is natural is good?

anyway, i'm the first person to say that humans are screwing up the balance of things and that it has to stop, but i wouldn't use the word "natural" to imply something that's inherently good. there are plenty of reasons to stop destroying wildlife and decreasing our biodiversity, other than it being "unnatural".

"Unwitting?" Snort. I assume that was their unfortunate choice of words. :dizzy:

They said it, I didn't. Just copied and pasted. But, I think some of the things the human race does are not natural though. Dumping chemicals into the water resources is certainly not a natural occurance for example.

Um, humans don't live on this higher plane separated from "nature." They are nature. Dumping chemicals into water resources may not be good for eco-systems, but to put humans onto some sort of different level, rather in the name of religious conquest of the environment, misguided romanticism, or misanthropy is part of the problem.

No progress can be made in terms of long-term solutions for our environmental problems on a foundation that is pure cow****. The natural/human dichotomy is one of the bits of philosophical houscleaning that is much overdue.

I don't know. What do we really need the big cats for, anyway? Aren't they a little scary? Don't they kill people?

I've always thought that everything will be exploited/enslaved/extinct soon enough and that we might as well just get it over with. :-/

It's not just the big cats that are in trouble. Almost all of the small cats are being wiped out as well, but don't get the attention because they are not famous for zoos and circuses. Not many people know what a Himilayian Fisher cat exists, much less how it is threatened.

We missed our opportunity to do this quickly and efficiently back during the Cold War.

We missed our opportunity to do this quickly and efficiently back during the Cold War.


that's pretty funny :D

It would be nice if we could save every species but with our human population booming it's going to come to a point where we have to wipe out pretty much all species except for our own. Of course this theory has no scientific backing that I know of since I'm theorizing off the top of my head, but at least Michael seems to agree. I don't realistically see how it could be any other way. We can and probably will save ourselves from pollution...air and such, but as far as other species are concerned... all animals that make their homes in the wild are as screwed as I am. :sick: I mean that half jokingly but it's still sad.

rigmarole

Biodiversity is dead. Long live biodiversity.

Not as funny as the Cold War thing (and thanks, btw), but it's the best I had in response to your post, rig.

Sometimes everything does seem hopeless.

Yup. We can give up, or we can keep fighting. I prefer to keep fighting (most of the time), since I can't unlearn what I've learned, so I keep doing what I can, and I hope the influence of what I do spreads, hopefully even exponentially some day.

You might want to go and see the big cats while you still have a chance. On the plus side, the tourism money might convince some developing nations to help keep them around a bit longer. On the minus side, I doubt that the animals enjoy being chased around by jeeps all day.

Just to brag, I did get to see some big cats this summer (on a trip through Africa): saw over 50 lions in 8 weeks and 7 countries, also quite a few cheetah (OK, possibly not a cat, but close) , a few leopards, and a serval (small, but still a cat).

I also believe that what we are doing to destroy the cats is "natural," at least as natural as, for example, a beaver disrupting a particular ecosystem for its own benefit by building a dam. It's natural, but it still sucks. Unlike beavers, we can choose alternate paths that do less harm.

It's heartbreaking to think that one day, when I'm old, I'll visit a museum and see animals that used to roam the earth (similar to what we do now with the dinosaurs). And I'll probably shed a quiet tear for the days long gone where life once lived.