Caribbean Monk Seal Extinct

[LadyTevar]

MSNBC Link

It's official: Caribbean monk seal is extinct
Only seal species to vanish due to human impacts; two other species at risk

After five years of futile efforts to find or confirm sightings of any Caribbean monk seals — even just one — the U.S. government on Friday announced that the species is officially extinct and the only seal to vanish due to human causes.

"Humans left the Caribbean monk seal population unsustainable after overhunting them," Kyle Baker, a biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service, said in a statement. "Unfortunately, this led to their demise and labels the species as the only seal to go extinct from human causes."

A Caribbean monk seal — the only subtropical seal native to the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico — had not been seen for more than 50 years. The last confirmed sighting was in 1952 at Seranilla Bank, between Jamaica and the Yucatan Peninsula.

The United States listed the species as endangered in 1967. The fisheries service will now have the species removed from the list.

"Caribbean monk seals were first discovered during Columbus’s second voyage in 1494, when eight seals were killed for meat," the fisheries service noted. "Following European colonization from the 1700s to 1900s, the seals were exploited intensively for their blubber, and to a lesser extent for food, scientific study and zoological collection. Blubber was processed into oil and used for lubrication, coating the bottom of boats, and as lamp and cooking oil. Seal skins were sought to make trunk linings, articles of clothing, straps and bags."

Hawaiian, Mediterranean species at risk
Just two other monk seal species remain: Hawaiian and Mediterranean monk seals, both of which are endangered and at risk of extinction. Populations have fallen to below 1,200 and 500 individuals, respectively, the fisheries service stated.

"Worldwide, populations of the two remaining monk seal species are declining," said Baker. "We hope we’ve learned from the extinction of Caribbean monk seals, and can provide stronger protection for their Hawaiian and Mediterranean relatives."

The Hawaiian population is declining at a rate of about four percent per year, with challenges "such as lack of food sources for young seals, entanglement in marine debris, predation by sharks, and loss of haul-out and pupping beaches due to erosion," the service said.

"The Hawaiian monk seal is a treasure to preserve for future generations," said NMFS biologist Bud Antonelis. The "fisheries service has developed a monk seal recovery plan, but we need continued support from organizations and the public if we are to have a chance at saving it from extinction. Time is running out."

"The fate of the Caribbean monk seal is a wake-up call for us to act quickly to protect other endangered monk seal populations. We must learn from our mistakes," Vicki Cornish of Ocean Conservancy echoed in a separate statement. "We must act now to reduce threats to existing monk seal populations before it's too late. These animals are important to the balance and health of the ocean — we can't afford to wait."

Other species of marine mammals that have gone extinct in modern times include the Atlantic gray whale (1700s or 1800s) and stellar sea cow (late 1700s), presumably due to overhunting by whalers, the fisheries service stated.

Climate connection
The Ocean Conservancy said some of the threats, especially erosion and debris, are tied to the El Nino weather pattern and rising sea levels, which in turn is tied to global warming.

"El Nino events, which cause storms similar to those expected to occur with increasing frequency as a result of climate change, drive marine debris closer to monk seal beaches and nearshore waters," it added. "Seal pups play with trash, which can lead to entanglement and eventual death. Increased numbers of Hawaiian monk seals have been found entangled in marine debris after El Nino events."

Entanglement happens even in "one of the best-protected ocean places in the United States," the conservation group said, referring to the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Monument created by President Bush in 2006.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Fuck. Not shocking. But fuck.

And now for the obligatory mention that we are causing a mass-extinction.

[Commander 598]

Wait, there was a seal species in the Carribbean?

[Companion Cube]

Wait, there was a seal species in the Carribbean?

Not any more, ahaha.

This reminds me how the world's fishing stocks are due to vanish by 2050. I wonder what it would take to force any kind of action on problems this large.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wait, there was a seal species in the Carribbean?

Not any more, ahaha.

This reminds me how the world's fishing stocks are due to vanish by 2050. I wonder what it would take to force any kind of action on problems this large.

Holding people at gun-point. Seriously. No one ever wants to take responsibility. Even with so-called management, we have a tragedy of the commons where everyone takes as much as they want, and due to diffusion of responsibility no one wants to shoulder the cost to take charge and solve the problem.

No one stops eating fish, no one goes out of their way to get farm raised fish (well.. I do...) and fisheries have a big enough lobby that they can pressure governments to deregulate.

Of course, 40% of amphibians are in decline, etc etc etc.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wait, there was a seal species in the Carribbean?

There used to be.

[Tasoth]

Kinda ironic that the image can't be found now...

Well, we've brought this upon ourselves and with no one really wanting to put the effort forward to stop it, we're going to lose alot of biodiversity. I'm kind of interested in seeing how the surviving species will radiate in the future.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

It also depends on where you get the fish. It requires careful research, given not all farmed fish are environmentally sustainable and can actually increase stress on wild fisheries.

[The Vortex Empire]

Amazing how so many people can't see how much we're fucking the planet over.

[Szass Tam]

I don't mean this as a troll, but a genuine question: Why should I, or anyone else, care about species extinction other than that we won't be able to eat them or watch documentaries about them? Is there some reason to preserve species other than for their own sake?

I could see being concerned if, say, something was threatening cows or wheat or dogs, something that helps us, but isn't this just a case of a species failing to adapt to evolutionary pressures?

[The Vortex Empire]

I don't mean this as a troll, but a genuine question: Why should I, or anyone else, care about species extinction other than that we won't be able to eat them or watch documentaries about them? Is there some reason to preserve species other than for their own sake?

I could see being concerned if, say, something was threatening cows or wheat or dogs, something that helps us, but isn't this just a case of a species failing to adapt to evolutionary pressures?

Species going extinct can screw with the food web and other environmental balances, and therefore can cause huge problems that affect us. All life is intertwined, take one species out of the equation and it can take dozens of others down with it.

[Singular Intellect]

Species going extinct can screw with the food web and other environmental balances, and therefore can cause huge problems that affect us. All life is intertwined, take one species out of the equation and it can take dozens of others down with it.

And none of this is either new or more devestating than the natural extinctions that routinely happen within our ecosystems. With a planet full of assorted lifeforms ranging in the high millions, even a dozen at once really doesn't mean anything.

I find that people tend to underestimate the resilence of nature and the animals within them. Furthermore, they do not understand that ecosystems aren't fragile systems that are evolved into any sort of 'balance'. They are dynamic systems that constantly change.

The common misconception seems to be that the extinction of a species is like removing a critical card in a fragile stack and the whole thing comes tumbling down. When in fact the case is the pyramid just gets reorganized unless the extinction event is very large (like the dinosaur killing asteroid impact, and even then life recovered quite nicely).

And to really put it into perspective, humans are the product of nature itself and we're not the first species to be responsible for wiping out others. We're just more aware of it and may have either direct concerns or moral ones about it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't mean this as a troll, but a genuine question: Why should I, or anyone else, care about species extinction other than that we won't be able to eat them or watch documentaries about them? Is there some reason to preserve species other than for their own sake?

I could see being concerned if, say, something was threatening cows or wheat or dogs, something that helps us, but isn't this just a case of a species failing to adapt to evolutionary pressures?

No. Normal predation is one thing. But normal predation, or competition does not usually cause extinctions. They cause arms races, and niche partitioning. We dont cause this. We cause extinctions. We cause such a huge selection coefficient that it does not matter how fast their mutation rate is, what their population size is, they die.

As for the reasons to not slaughter other species wholesale, do you really need one that is something other than the intrinsic value of the organism? How about aggregates? How about an ecosystem?

The idea that we should only care if it hurts us, is flawed, because it presupposes the idea that the purpose of nature is to serve our needs. These animals, species, ecosystems, entire biomes. They all exist for their own sake. They are the product of millions of years of evolution. They have their own histories, their own lives, individuals have their own interests. They have intrinsic value, and to say they dont, that we do not have moral obligations to preserving them, is to cede the notion that we have no such obligations to ourselves.

And now for the aesthetic argument. Anyone who spends any time in The Nature finds it self-evident that it, and the organisms that inhabit it, must be preserved. To see ducklings hatch, dragonflies chasing other insects, the coordinated raids of army ants on a campanotus nest...It is self-evident

And none of this is either new or more devestating than the natural extinctions that routinely happen within our ecosystems.

That is where you are pathetically wrong. Mass extinctions, which we are causing, are not common. They happen via natural disaster such as asteroid impact, or rapid climate shift very infrequently. Never before has one species wrought so much destruction.

With a planet full of assorted lifeforms ranging in the high millions, even a dozen at once really doesn't mean anything.

It does when it does not need to happen. It does when you consider that extinctions are relatively rare events and that within the last hundred years we have sent 40% of amphibians into dangerous decline, clearcut our rainforests(and doomed thousands of species to extinction in the process, most of which undescribed) and otherwise presided over a mass extinction event.

Furthermore, they do not understand that ecosystems aren't fragile systems that are evolved into any sort of 'balance'. They are dynamic systems that constantly change.

Yeah, but that change is slow. Not really comparable to damming up every major river we can find, dumping toxic chemicals into the water table, paving over wetlands, and strip-fishing our oceans until they are practically clean of life. The RATE and MAGNITUDE of the destruction we bring wherever we go is something that no ecosystem can handle. What with not being modified, but destroyed.

The common misconception seems to be that the extinction of a species is like removing a critical card in a fragile stack and the whole thing comes tumbling down. When in fact the case is the pyramid just gets reorganized unless the extinction event is very large (like the dinosaur killing asteroid impact, and even then life recovered quite nicely).

Asteroid impact=/our actions. An asteroid impact is a freak occurrence. A cosmic accident. What we do is intentional, and we are responsible for our actions. Responsible for every species we drive to extinction.

The simple fact is we ARE causing the extinction of thousands of species per year. Up to 30,000. Annually.

humans are the product of nature itself and we're not the first species to be responsible for wiping out others.

very rarely does one species actually outcompete another or hunt it to extinction. We are the only species in the history of earth that does what we do, causing about 3 extinctions per hour...mostly of species that will never be known to science.

[Mayabird]

A healthy ecosystem does have a lot of slack in it, wiggle room, margin of error, ability to bounce back, whatever you want to call it. The key word is healthy. There aren't many of them left. Sure, there are ecosystems that are functioning, but none of them are as healthy as they were when the human-induced mass extinctions began about 50k years ago.

Bubble Boy, I don't think you truly understand the scope here. Over 30% of all the products of photosynthesis across the world are used by humans today in some form or another. Might be eating plants directly or eating something that ate the plants, but one third of it all ends up being used by us. Think about that and then get back to us.

[Singular Intellect]

And none of this is either new or more devestating than the natural extinctions that routinely happen within our ecosystems.

That is where you are pathetically wrong. Mass extinctions, which we are causing, are not common. They happen via natural disaster such as asteroid impact, or rapid climate shift very infrequently. Never before has one species wrought so much destruction.

If you have evidence the existence of humanity is not a natural one, present your proof.

Until then, we can stick to science and logic which dictates that humanity is a product of evolution like all other lifeforms. Ergo, we're a natural force on this planet, regardless if we like our influence on it or not.

With a planet full of assorted lifeforms ranging in the high millions, even a dozen at once really doesn't mean anything.

It does when it does not need to happen.

Define 'need to happen'. We are no different than every other creature on this planet that competes for resources and reproduces. Just because we're vastly superior to many of our competitors is not something to apologize for.

One could also say that a male lion doesn't 'need' to kill a litter of cubs in order to bring the mother into heat, but it happens anyways.

It does when you consider that extinctions are relatively rare events and that within the last hundred years we have sent 40% of amphibians into dangerous decline, clearcut our rainforests(and doomed thousands of species to extinction in the process, most of which undescribed) and otherwise presided over a mass extinction event.

Yes, there's no denying humanity's influence on this planet is very significant.

I have yet however to see a single arguement or shred of evidence that what we are doing is 'wrong' from a natural point of view.

Furthermore, they do not understand that ecosystems aren't fragile systems that are evolved into any sort of 'balance'. They are dynamic systems that constantly change.

Yeah, but that change is slow. Not really comparable to damming up every major river we can find, dumping toxic chemicals into the water table, paving over wetlands, and strip-fishing our oceans until they are practically clean of life. The RATE and MAGNITUDE of the destruction we bring wherever we go is something that no ecosystem can handle. What with not being modified, but destroyed.

What you mean is ecosystems not resilient enough die when humans are introduced...this is a natural process called natural selection.

The common misconception seems to be that the extinction of a species is like removing a critical card in a fragile stack and the whole thing comes tumbling down. When in fact the case is the pyramid just gets reorganized unless the extinction event is very large (like the dinosaur killing asteroid impact, and even then life recovered quite nicely).

Asteroid impact=/our actions. An asteroid impact is a freak occurrence. A cosmic accident. What we do is intentional, and we are responsible for our actions. Responsible for every species we drive to extinction.

Only as responsible as every other form of life on the planet that gathers resources and reproduces. Whether you like it or not, we are only accountable to ourselves, there's no glowing golden law of nature that insists what we are doing is 'wrong'. Humanity could very well tax the planet's resources to such an extent that we virtually wipe ourselves out and take many other species with us.

However, we wouldn't be the first species to overpopulate and then die out. The planet will go on just fine without us if that's the case.

The simple fact is we ARE causing the extinction of thousands of species per year. Up to 30,000. Annually.

Where is this figure derived from and what is it's validity?

humans are the product of nature itself and we're not the first species to be responsible for wiping out others.

very rarely does one species actually outcompete another or hunt it to extinction. We are the only species in the history of earth that does what we do, causing about 3 extinctions per hour...mostly of species that will never be known to science.

Again, another figure you've thrown out, but this time you actually admitted the figure is one based upon nothing 'known to science'. If the species are unknown to science, then where does the validity of their existence come from in the first place? By your own arguement, the figure could be plucked out of thin air.

[Singular Intellect]

A healthy ecosystem does have a lot of slack in it, wiggle room, margin of error, ability to bounce back, whatever you want to call it. The key word is healthy. There aren't many of them left. Sure, there are ecosystems that are functioning, but none of them are as healthy as they were when the human-induced mass extinctions began about 50k years ago.

The problem here is you're asserting what 'healthy' is without any justification I've seen. Nature is only concerned with what 'works', not what individual people want to personally declare as 'healthy' in the abstract sense.

Bubble Boy, I don't think you truly understand the scope here. Over 30% of all the products of photosynthesis across the world are used by humans today in some form or another. Might be eating plants directly or eating something that ate the plants, but one third of it all ends up being used by us. Think about that and then get back to us.

Yes, as the apex omnivorous predator of the planet with a very large population, we therefore consume very large amounts of resources.

What's your point? Should we be apologizing for existing and behaving as natural evolution molded us, or should we instead just accept what we are and focus our efforts on ensuring our healthy survival?

The problem with yours and Alyrium Denryle's position (as I understand it) is that your fret and wring your hands about how horrible it is that us humans are so successful at reproducing and extracting resources at the expense of other species around us. Even though this is exactly what every other lifeform does; we simply do it better and on a much larger scale.

The fact is you're operating an advanced computer system to post on this board, live in a nice heated and protected home, have access to clean drinking water and processed food; all these and many, many other luxuries are proof that you are in fact very comfortable with humanity being at the top of the food chain, since you take advantage of all these luxuries. And you'd be the worst kind of hypocrit if you insisted anyone else shouldn't want or have these things when you do.

So your overwhelming concern for the well being of all other creatures is superficial at best; I have no doubt you feel bad and empathize with the hardships and death of other creatures at the hand of humanity, just as I do. But you've made your choice, and so far as I know, will continue to enjoy the luxuries of the vast human infrastructure that is so devestating to the other species and ecosystems of the planet.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

If you have evidence the existence of humanity is not a natural one, present your proof.

Until then, we can stick to science and logic which dictates that humanity is a product of evolution like all other lifeforms. Ergo, we're a natural force on this planet, regardless if we like our influence on it or not.

That would just mean we are a type of natural ecological disaster because we are so successful. We are a biological asteroid.

Define 'need to happen'. We are no different than every other creature on this planet that competes for resources and reproduces. Just because we're vastly superior to many of our competitors is not something to apologize for.

One could also say that a male lion doesn't 'need' to kill a litter of cubs in order to bring the mother into heat, but it happens anyways.

Sure, we are animals, and we compete for resources as other animals do. But we are also intelligent and possess the ability to think about what we are doing, why we are doing it, and if we can change it. An ant cant. That you can do something doesn't mean you ought to do something, and that you are naturally born a certain way doesn't mean that's inherently a good thing.

That we are naturally superior (in some traits and abilities) than other animals has absolutely no bearing on how we ought to behave and treat others.

I have yet however to see a single arguement or shred of evidence that what we are doing is 'wrong' from a natural point of view.

There is no wrong from a natural point of view. Nature's neutral and doesn't give a shit. That doesn't mean we ought to act like that because the reality is that we are just really well-organized, intelligence primates. Does it?

Who said it's wrong from a natural view? That doesn't even make sense. The Universe doesn't care. There is no natural "morality."

What you mean is ecosystems not resilient enough die when humans are introduced...this is a natural process called natural selection.

So? That something's natural, happens in nature doesn't mean we ought to let it happen. Also, saying "it's natural selection" isn't an ethical defense. If differential reproduction is the measure, it was also natural selection if one tribe beat the shit out of another tribe, killed the men and children, stole their women, and spread their genes through rape. They survive to reproduce at the expense of another tribe. Is that okay?

I am sure you wouldn't go "lolz, oh well, that's nature!!"

Only as responsible as every other form of life on the planet that gathers resources and reproduces. Whether you like it or not, we are only accountable to ourselves, there's no glowing golden law of nature that insists what we are doing is 'wrong'. Humanity could very well tax the planet's resources to such an extent that we virtually wipe ourselves out and take many other species with us.

However, we wouldn't be the first species to overpopulate and then die out. The planet will go on just fine without us if that's the case.

If you use responsible only in a shallow sense, yes, they are responsible for what they do. But they can't be held morally accountable, and they aren't acting with volition to harm others. It's instinctual, largely. People know what they are doing, know they can change (often at little real sacrifice) but don't. That's why we have vast factory farms of torture. Most people don't care. A dog doesn't know any better and can't think about it.

[Ziggy Stardust]

But you've made your choice, and so far as I know, will continue to enjoy the luxuries of the vast human infrastructure that is so devestating to the other species and ecosystems of the planet.

And that is the central fallacy to your line of thought. That is exactly the kind of refusal to take responsibility for one's actions that was mentioned earlier in this thread (how kind of you to furnish the example). Claiming that human civilization by definition is detrimental to the environment, therefore we should do nothing to minimize our impact is an incredibly stupid and ill-thought conclusion. The past decade of technology has proven that it is entirely possible to live comfortably in a manner that has very little negative effect on the environment (and before you point out how we will continue to use infrastructure like highways that have destroyed ecosystems, may I remind you that that damage has already been done and is thus irrelevant when talking about FUTURE impact). Yes, I know we will still have some sort of effect on the world around us, that is inevitable: but it is not impossible to minimize this impact to something that is not as devastating as the current model. To think otherwise is to intentionally shift the burden from your shoulders by saying "But all humans hurt the environment! So I don't need to do anything!" Not only not based on any sort of logic or fact, it is just an attempt to ignore the issue (the same exact mindset, as a matter of fact, that led to it taking years for governments to accept global warming existed, despite the fact that the scientific community had been talking about it for decades).

[Alyrium Denryle]

If you have evidence the existence of humanity is not a natural one, present your proof.

Until then, we can stick to science and logic which dictates that humanity is a product of evolution like all other lifeforms. Ergo, we're a natural force on this planet, regardless if we like our influence on it or not.

Do you know what a strawman is? How about a "naturalistic fallacy"

I never said we were not a natural force. I am saying that we are something unseen, the forces we are capable of exerting on an ecosystem are not something that any ecosystem has the ability to handle. We Break the system, even if we are a part of it.

Define 'need to happen'. We are no different than every other creature on this planet that competes for resources and reproduces. Just because we're vastly superior to many of our competitors is not something to apologize for.

One could also say that a male lion doesn't 'need' to kill a litter of cubs in order to bring the mother into heat, but it happens anyways.

You are a fucking idiot. A male lion does actually need to kill a female's cubs to bring her into heat, and to avoid investing in offspring that are not his.

Need Not Happen can be defined in terms of what we actually need. We do not need to strip mine the oceans, using dredge nets to get shrimp, effectively scouring the ocean bottom of life, of using thousand hook lines to wipe out the bluefin tuna. We do not actually need the rare woods we get from rainforest trees, or the huge tracts of land we devote to nothing but the grazing of cattle, of which we consume so much it is becoming hazardous to our health.

Every other predator on this planet is constrained in its consumption of prey by environmental conditions and prey population. The prey population drops as a result of predation and environmental conditions, and the predator population drops as well. We dont follow this rule, and have not for thousands of years. If an animal of interest to us, like whales, drops in population, they become rare, and thus more valuable, and thus we get more efficient in harvesting them, until they are gone. It is happening right now with commerically valuable species of fish, and it was happening to every whale species before we put our foot down. And if the Japanese have their way, it will happen again.

Because we do not actually need them to survive, our populations are not constrained by their numbers, and thus neither is our rate of predation. And that does not even consider the countless organisms that have been wiped from the universe forever, because we needlessly destroyed their habitat, or accidentally spread a disease or introduced an invasive organism.

None of that needed to happen. There is not a single extinction that was not preventable, that we needed to cause in order to survive. We wiped out the Passenger Pigeon, because we liked PIE!

Also, the term "superior" presupposes the notion that the universe is goal driven.

I have yet however to see a single arguement or shred of evidence that what we are doing is 'wrong' from a natural point of view.

That is because you A) dont know what natural selection means or how it works and B) you are committing a naturalistic fallacy you fucking retard asshat. And even a poor one, because we are not in line with the normal rules that ecosystems operate on. We use technology to surpass and break them.

What you mean is ecosystems not resilient enough die when humans are introduced...this is a natural process called natural selection.

No. No it is not. Natural selection is not acting in this system, it has no substrate on which to work. There is no amount of genetic variation that will allow a rainforest biome to resist being clear-cut, or a reef to survive industrial pollutants. Moreover, the rate is such that even if it had the genetic charge to adapt (genetic charge being stored genetic potential in terms of previously neutral variation) there is not enough time to allow for it to be released.

You dont have a fucking clue how natural selection actually works, child.

However, we wouldn't be the first species to overpopulate and then die out. The planet will go on just fine without us if that's the case.

Actually, we will be. No species, barring natural disaster, has ever gone extinct due to overshooting its carrying capacity.

there's no glowing golden law of nature that insists what we are doing is 'wrong'.

Actually I can make the argument that a reverence for and respect for nature is probably selected for. But that would be to commit a naturalistic fallacy, which you cant seem to avoid doing. Here is what you are going to do kiddo. You are going to learn how to argue honestly, and you are going to learn how natural selection and other ecological processes actually work, or you are going to sit down and shut the fuck up.

Where is this figure derived from and what is it's validity?

From PBS you ignoramus

Turns out the this range is the consensus, I cant find the peer reviewed stuff on it though, probably need to refine my search terms in web of science.

Again, another figure you've thrown out, but this time you actually admitted the figure is one based upon nothing 'known to science'. If the species are unknown to science, then where does the validity of their existence come from in the first place? By your own arguement, the figure could be plucked out of thin air.

That number is derived from the first, divide 30000 by 365, then by 24 and you get 3.42. Learn how to do math.

Now, go to the Brazilian Amazon, and shake a tree. You will discover a few new species. Some of which have a total species range of a few kilometers. Now cut down a few hundred thousand hectares. How many species do you think you wiped out? How about habitat fragmentation causing even more extinctions.

I would suggest this

Wilson, E.O., The Future of Life (2002) (ISBN 0-679-76811-4). See also: Leakey, Richard, The Sixth Extinction : Patterns of Life and the Future of Humankind,

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I think a good question would be "what are we willing to do or give up" to solve this problem. Despite knowing something could be better or that something's wrong, few people are willing to sacrifice much of what they want. They (including myself) do want luxuries. But I don't pretend that I think what I do is fine, okay, or good.

I just know that I act unethically sometimes, but I admit it. I don't try to craft a wily defense of it by appealing to nature or the status quo.

[ray245]

It's a huge irony that we would need a dicator to force people to do what is necessary instead of doing what they like.

I want to ask a question, which species extinction will impact humanity to a HUGE extend?

[Sarevok]

I want to ask a question, which species extinction will impact humanity to a HUGE extend?

Homo sapiens.

[Johonebesus]

(like the dinosaur killing asteroid impact, and even then life recovered quite nicely)

It took ten million years for life to "recover nicely" after that one.

I don't want to sound like I'm jumping on the bandwagon, but I think the point here isn't a new age nature worship B.S. I don't care what is natural or not. I just don't want the planet's ecosystems to collapse to a point that humans can't survive. Yes, life would probably continue to exist and eventually recover. It would take a great concerted effort on our part to completely sterilize that planet. That doesn't mean that humanity wouldn't suffer if this mass extinction reaches a Permian era level. I don't give a rat's ass whether or not it is as natural as every other mass extinction event. It could still cause a great deal of suffering for a great many people, including myself. I assume you are capable of accepting this utilitarian line of reasoning.

[Alyrium Denryle]

(like the dinosaur killing asteroid impact, and even then life recovered quite nicely)

It took ten million years for life to "recover nicely" after that one.

I don't want to sound like I'm jumping on the bandwagon, but I think the point here isn't a new age nature worship B.S. I don't care what is natural or not. I just don't want the planet's ecosystems to collapse to a point that humans can't survive. Yes, life would probably continue to exist and eventually recover. It would take a great concerted effort on our part to completely sterilize that planet. That doesn't mean that humanity wouldn't suffer if this mass extinction reaches a Permian era level. I don't give a rat's ass whether or not it is as natural as every other mass extinction event. It could still cause a great deal of suffering for a great many people, including myself. I assume you are capable of accepting this utilitarian line of reasoning.

I dont think him capavle of intellectual honestly. Also: utilitarianism, without directly taking into account the relative suffering vs utility of other organisms is a tad inconsistent.

[CJvR]

Taking top predators out of the equation does not have much of an impact, as long as there are other preditors available to take up the slack and particulary not if we are one of the other predators. If you are to seriously screw up the eco-system you should take out something at the beginning of the food chain not the rear of it. Remove Krill and just about everything in the Southern oceans dies, we have almost done that btw...