IT'S FUCKIN' HOT AND WE'RE KILLIN' ALL THE WHALES

[Xaeta]

and what happens when human leave the circle of life?

[42PETUNIAS]

There was an article in the Globe and Mail (Canadian newspaper) the other day about what would happen if humans suddenly died out. I'll try and post a link if I can find it.

Edit: Turns out you need to be a paying member of the website, or to buy the article. Here it is anyways, in case someone wants it.

[Sithdarth]

if the bears died off...we'd be overrun with salmon.

doesn't seem like a big deal, but it really is...too many salmon means not enough bugs which means bats go hungry and many birds and then everything dies off and the sun explodes.

it's called the circle of life for a reason....come on folks, go watch the lion king!

Except for this:

Bears have been known to prey on large mammals such as moose, deer, sheep, caribou and even black bears. Grizzly bears will feed on fish such as salmon, trout, and bass, and those with access to a more protein-enriched diet in coastal areas potentially grow larger than interior individuals. Grizzly bears will readily scavenge food, behavior that can lead them into conflict with other species, such as wolves and humans.

So getting rid of bears could lead to any number of problems with a large number of prey species directly. Not to mention the species that Grizzly Bears are in direct competition with like the Grey Wolf. Then there is an even larger cascade of secondary effects and its just never a good thing.

[Faolin]

ohhh when humans die out the ozone will already have been completely depleted i'm sure, all drinkable water will have been poisoned, and i'm sure some nuclear and/or biological war would have been fared, so everything would die out except cockroaches.

and twinkies.

[Odjn]

Don't we have too many bears and too few wolves?

Also, since we're needing some food supplies and salmon are declining anyway killing bears might be <gasp> overall beneficial.

[ArlanKels]

Originally Posted by Odjn

Don't we have too many bears and too few wolves?

Also, since we're needing some food supplies and salmon are declining anyway killing bears might be <gasp> overall beneficial.

I hate to interrupt again but this is one of the funnier things out there.

You see, in my area the deer population is increasing so much(Even with the reintroduction of the coyote) that it's becoming TOO populated.


Yet if people went and killed the excess deer..? Well, we could help deal with starvation in at least America. If coyote had never been reintroduced we'd be swimming in deer right now, as they actually did make a dent in the deer population.

[Odjn]

Huh. Why don't we eat deer in supermarkets again?

Oh, that's right. Corporations.

[42PETUNIAS]

I think I've heard that human foresting is causing the rise in deer population, so in the case we aren't directly causing the endangering of this species, although indirectly, the increase in deer population will probably harm the environment in an indirect way.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by 42PETUNIAS

I think I've heard that human foresting is causing the rise in deer population, so in the case we aren't directly causing the endangering of this species, although indirectly, the increase in deer population will probably harm the environment in an indirect way.

We are. The ideal niche for a deer is in a "fragmented" area. Areas created when we fragment forests for the wood, or to make roads, fields, blah blah blah.

Though to a small degree, this does lead to human fatalities. I don't approve of hunting for sport, but I am in favor of culling for maintenance; preferably short-term maintenance too. That's why I don't mind hunting deer; I know in at least some parts of Canada, and this is probably true elsewhere, hunters are the ones keeping the deer population down.

But there's a difference between controlling a pest species (especially one brought about by our own activity) and annihilating somewhat senselessly. And there are selfish reasons for preserving species and habitats. The cures for AIDS, malaria, and various forms of cancers could be sitting in the forests we're happily cutting or burning down. Beyond that, seeing as at least some of us can extend our "human empathy" to other species, it shows we can be put on an even playing field with other life. I don't subscribe to the "we are the rulers of all" notion either. For the smartest species on the planet, we are still probably the dumbest.

[Sithdarth]

Don't we have too many bears and too few wolves?

Also, since we're needing some food supplies and salmon are declining anyway killing bears might be <gasp> overall beneficial.

Except there is no way to truly know what would happen if we culled the bear population. A population that is already low and on the verge of endangerment some species I believe are already endangered. Removing bears could very well cause an exponential growth in deer population then a mass die off of deer and several species that depend on eating the same food as the deer. In the short term this means more food for the wolfs but once the carcass rot you've suddenly got a food shortage for them too which is doubly bad for something with an already low population.

Huh. Why don't we eat deer in supermarkets again?

Oh, that's right. Corporations.

No its because of the FDA. Wild game laws are in place because (and this is a big shocker) wild animals pick up parasites and viruses. Its dangerous to eat wild game because it needs to be cut cleaned and cooked in very specific ways. I mean people catch things from domesticated meat because they don't quite cook it right imagine what could be unleashed if wild game was common. Plus its actually rather expensive because its not as easy to slaughter in vast numbers.