Extinction- Where are the boundaries?

[Sephychu]

Today, I was talking to a friend of mine. I was wondering about her opinions on extinction of other species, and where she stood on humanities extinction of other species. It was an interesting conversation, but when I was in the shower, something occurred to me.

What about Crabs?

Obviously, it applies to other species, like head lice, but what about Genital Lice? Do they deserve to exist? They are parasites. Literally. They live off another, and serve nothing. They don't eat anything else, they don't kill anything, they make no natural beauty, yet they live. They trudge along with their existences, and drink the blood of a groin area. Lotions are sold with the express intent of killing them.

So the main idea of this thread is, what do you escapists think a species has to do to be worthy of survival? Where do you stand? Should Genital Lice be driven to extinction, while other species are preserved?

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

You know what else is considered to be a parasite? Programs are bullies.

Although, you do give a good point. If they are universally loathed perhaps? Rather mean-spirited I suppose, and therefore will soon garner a bucketload of sympathy from people who hate it when the down-trodden get trodden down.

I confess I am unsure.

 

[Internet Kraken]

We shouldn't kill any species on the grounds that we don't like what they do. Even if that species doesn't benefit us in any way, they may be needed for another species survival. And that species may be needed for another species survival, and so on. The death of an entire species will send ripples across the food web and affect all others. There will be consequences that we can't even predict. Hence why I think every species as the right to exist, for other species may be dependent on their survival.

While the world could probably go one without the existence of genital lice, that's just one irritating species. I'm sure a large number of people hate mosquitoes and would gladly see them wiped out. yet doing so would cripple an innumerable number of ecosystems.

 

[AvsJoe]

what do you escapists think a species has to do to be worthy of survival?

A combination of being the fittest, so to speak, and being lucky. Any animal that survives humankind's reign of terror is definitely worthy of survival. Those are my beliefs and I'm sticking to them.

 

[Sephychu]

We shouldn't kill any species on the grounds that we don't like what they do. Even if that species doesn't benefit us in any way, they may be needed for another species survival. And that species may be needed for another species survival, and so on. The death of an entire species will send ripples across the food web and affect all others. There will be consequences that we can't even predict. Hence why I think every species as the right to exist, for other species may be dependent on their survival.

While the world could probably go one without the existence of genital lice, that's just one irritating species. I'm sure a large number of people hate mosquitoes and would gladly see them wiped out. yet doing so would cripple an innumerable number of ecosystems.

That's exactly the kind of response I'm trying to evoke. Genital Lice aren't eaten y anything, and all they do is drink the blood of those who catch them, but if we exterminate them, like we are encouraged to, what does that say about how we decide other species right to exist? What's to stop us considering more species genocide?

Wahey, too many questions.

 

[FaithorFire]

The long term ecological effects of a species extinction are nearly impossible to fully predict. It should never be a question of whether or not a species should be driven away, the only factor which should come into play is whether or not a species can survive.
If crabs lose their ecological niche then they'll go extinct on their own. In fact there was a study by the University of Florida
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070307152957.htm
which posits the idea that gorilla lice were picked up by early humans and caused us to become gradually more hairless.
This may have forced humans to create clothing to survive. The behavioral effects from the creation of clothing (like language or weapons) are astounding. Its also possible that the loss of thick fur over pubic regions led to early humans with better formed or cleaner genitals reproducing more.
These are just theories, but if there is a hint of truth, then crabs might have been essential to the evolution of humans, alongside millions of other variables. Don't let yourself think too superficially about the value of any species.
And the best thing to do is let nature do its thing.

 

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

Basically, what I've learned in biology is that animals have three different types of relationships with each other:

Mutualism - where both animals benefit
Commensalism - where one animal benefits and the other is unharmed
Parasitism - where one animal benefits and the other animal suffers

In a sense I don't think there is any particular reason humans exists. I mean all we do is kill other stuff, and we don;t exactly help other things. Every supposed "protect X animal" movement we make is protecting said animal from ourselves. So I mean, in a sense, we're useless.

 

[Internet Kraken]

We shouldn't kill any species on the grounds that we don't like what they do. Even if that species doesn't benefit us in any way, they may be needed for another species survival. And that species may be needed for another species survival, and so on. The death of an entire species will send ripples across the food web and affect all others. There will be consequences that we can't even predict. Hence why I think every species as the right to exist, for other species may be dependent on their survival.

While the world could probably go one without the existence of genital lice, that's just one irritating species. I'm sure a large number of people hate mosquitoes and would gladly see them wiped out. yet doing so would cripple an innumerable number of ecosystems.

That's exactly the kind of response I'm trying to evoke. Genital Lice aren't eaten y anything, and all they do is drink the blood of those who catch them, but if we exterminate them, like we are encouraged to, what does that say about how we decide other species right to exist? What's to stop us considering more species genocide?

Wahey, too many questions.

Well that's the thing; you can't really determine if a species has the right to exist because there are to many factors that go into such a decision. Even parasites serve as food for some species. So I guess genocide is never really justified.

 

[Nebr66]

Alot of species don't really seem to do anything other than make more of themselves, but that doesn't realy excuse eliminating them If they are an inconvienience. Also there's the result on the ecosystem to take into account.

But I vote pandas, I hate them. It's completly irration but I still hate them.

 

[Sephychu]

Basically, what I've learned in biology is that animals have three different types of relationships with each other:

Mutualism - where both animals benefit
Commensalism - where one animal benefits and the other is unharmed
Parasitism - where one animal benefits and the other animal suffers

In a sense I don't think there is any particular reason humans exists. I mean all we do is kill other stuff, and we don;t exactly help other things. Every supposed "protect X animal" movement we make is protecting said animal from ourselves. So I mean, in a sense, we're useless.

While you have a good point, I'm considering this argument relative to humanity. Relative to the universe, we are indeed pointless, a mark of space dust on the infinite expanse of space, but relative to ourselves, we are brilliant. So, in a sense, we are useless to the universe, but paramount to one another, and thus I'm trying to see what other people think warrants as useless or worthy of extinction to us.

 

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

Basically, what I've learned in biology is that animals have three different types of relationships with each other:

Mutualism - where both animals benefit
Commensalism - where one animal benefits and the other is unharmed
Parasitism - where one animal benefits and the other animal suffers

In a sense I don't think there is any particular reason humans exists. I mean all we do is kill other stuff, and we don;t exactly help other things. Every supposed "protect X animal" movement we make is protecting said animal from ourselves. So I mean, in a sense, we're useless.

While you have a good point, I'm considering this argument relative to humanity. Relative to the universe, we are indeed pointless, a mark of space dust on the infinite expanse of space, but relative to ourselves, we are brilliant. So, in a sense, we are useless to the universe, but paramount to one another, and thus I'm trying to see what other people think warrants as useless or worthy of extinction to us.

Oh. Well then.

The Aids virus comes to mind.

 

[Regiment]

I agree with what other people have said- extermination of a species could lead to unforeseen consequences. However, I find it a bad idea more because I see what it leads to. It's a slippery slope. If you exterminate all the [undesirable animal], why can't you exterminate the [slightly less undesirable animal] too? And then why not kill off the [minor pest]? And then...

 

[Evilbunny]

A combination of being the fittest, so to speak, and being lucky. Any animal that survives humankind's reign of terror is definitely worthy of survival. Those are my beliefs and I'm sticking to them.

Pretty much this. Like it or not, we're kind of a big deal on this planet. Creatures have to figure out a way to coexist with us or they will die. Seagulls are a good example. They used to eat dead fish that were left there by larger predators, but when humans started industrializing they figured out how to eat our garbage. If genital lice figure out a way to not die even when we try to kill them, then they deserve to live, because they've earned it.