When Extinction Means Good Riddance
June 13th, 2010
|
| Share |
At the risk of being called an environmental blasphemer, I’d like to propose something shocking: the extinction of a species, entirely due to human activity may not always be a bad thing. In fact, it may be a very good thing. We have come to be taught that all species deserve to exist (not sure where the “deserve” comes from) and as such, any species that reaches the point of being critically low in number may qualify for the designation endangered species, providing it with protection under both national laws and international conventions.
In many, perhaps most cases, this protection is well warranted. Many species are enjoyed by humans for their unique properties or their place in nature. Others are vital to the balance of ecosystems or play a vital role in nature. Still others may provide vast amounts of data to science on matters of evolution, biology or even practical data, applicable to medical treatment or biological control of pests. It would be unwise to slate any species for intentional extermination without first considering whether it might have such importance and perhaps preserving some specimens, yet this does not preclude the possibility that extinction may be the best thing for humanity and nature, at least with a few species.
Numerous species of plant, animal, fungus and microbe are, dare I say it: useless and better off wiped off the face of the planet. Pathogens rank high here as do some parasites, such as intestinal worms, which are not prey or food for any species and play little role in the ecosystem, other than occasionally causing extreme pain, disease and death, often to humans. Disease vectors, such as some breeds of mosquito also may be best off being dispensed of, if it is possible to do so.
If this makes me sound a bit human-centric, I have no apologies. I happen to be a human and I also like my species quite a lot. I have no problem dispensing with little nasties that cause my fellow main to suffer or die.
So to the Rocky Mountain Locust and the Small Pox virus I say only this: Good riddance!
Extinct, believed extinct (no recent sightings) or critically near extinction and not really missed:
“Human Flea” – The term has been used to describe a number of fleas, one of the most common, Pulex irritans, is actually not exclusive to humans but will live on a variety of hosts, and is still very much alive. However, a number of species and sub-species of flea which preferred human hosts have existed in centuries past. Most, if not all of these species are now extinct. As some may not have been cataloged it’s not entirely clear what species of fleas may have been driven to extinction by human measures, but it is believed at least a few are now gone for good. The last large human fleas may have died off completely as late as the 1950′s.
Rocky Mountain Locust – The Rocky Mountain Locust was a species of locust common in the western United States and southwestern Canada. From the mid to late 1800’s, the species was responsible for some of the worst crop-damaging swarms in recent history, nearly causing widespread famine in areas of the western United States on several occasions. The locusts swarmed through farmland in the largest insect migrations in recorded history, decimating crops as they moved from one area to another. In 1875, what would become known as “Albert’s swarm” became the largest and most devastating such swarm.
Given how common the species was, nobody expected the Rocky Mountain Locust to experience a rapid population crash and finally extinction. However, after the 1870’s their population plummeted. It is believed that a combination of irrigation, plowing, unfavorable climate conditions for several years disrupted the life cycle of the locust and eventually drove it to extinction. The last Rocky Mountain Locust was seen in 1902. Since then, there has been some speculation that the species may have actually been a non-extinct species of grasshopper that was endued into the locust/swarming phase by high population density. However, genetic analysis of locusts recovered from grasshopper glacier has indicated this is not the case. The Rocky Mountain locust was indeed its own species and is now gone.
Small Pox - Small Pox as a disease was last reported in 1978 and is thus extinct. As an organism, there are no active viral samples left and only two samples of the virus in storage. One is located at a CDC facility in the United States and the other at the Vector Institute in Russia. These two small, frozen samples are the only known examples of the virus in existence and likely represent only a tiny portion of the once large number of strains and subtypes of the virus. As viruses tend to mutate into a diverse number of subtypes, it is likely that most of the smallpox strains are now forever extinct.
It is remotely possible that the virus may still exist in mummified human remains or in preserved scabs, as were found in an envelop in 2004. However, even if such samples do exist, it’s not entirely clear that the virus could remain viable for such a period of time outside of an active host. Activity by other microbes, general chemical degradation and compounding genetic damage has likely left such samples unable to become active again.
Leprosy bacterium (Mycobacterium leprae) – The leprosy bacterium, which has plagued humans since biblical times and probably earlier has been dramatically reduced during the 20th century. Today many regional strains and subspecies of the bacterium are believed to be extinct. The bacterium in general is teetering on the edge of extinction and may be eliminated from the environment within the next few years. The bacterium is entirely parasitic and lacks the ability to survive long term on its own, thus denying it hosts is likely to lead to its extinction. A combination of quarantine, antibiotics and sanitation has dramatically reduced new cases of leprosy. While many in the developing world continue to suffer the long term effects of the illness, millions have been cured in just the past few years and new infections are extremely rare.
Polio – After the successful eradication of Smallpox, health authorities began to consider the possibility of eradicating Polio. Like Smallpox, Polio infects only humans and is preventable with a highly effective vaccine. In the past decade, efforts to eradication have lead to the complete elimination of the virus from the Americas, Europe and most of Asia. Early hopes were that the virus could be eradicated as early as 2004, but the effort has faced something of a stalemate in India and Africa, in part due to anti-vaccine propaganda. Never the less, the WHO is confident that it will successfully eradicate the disease in the near future.
Levuana Moth - The Levuana moth was originally native to Fiji, but spread to many other tropical areas, possibly due to inadvertent transport by humans. The moth fed primarily on coconuts and in doing so, decimated the coconut crops of many areas from the late 1800’s to the 1920’s.
Beginning in the mid 1920’s, an effort to control the levuana moth using insectacides, fumingation of coconut shipments and various biological controls began. The program was ramped up through the following decades, leading to a dramatic decline in the levuanna moth population. Intensive biological control played the greatest role in reducing the population of the moth until it eventually was unable to maintain a viable breeding stock.
The moth was finally declared extinct in 1994, after no individuals of the species had been detected for several years.
North American Screw Worm Fly - A very very nasty little insect that would lay eggs on warm blooded animals (yes, including humans), producing larvae that burrow into the flesh. The larvae eat the flesh of the living host before bursting out, leaving behind open sores that are prone to infection. This subspecies of the screw worm fly was native to North America but was eradicated through a combination of pest control and the use of the sterile male technique. Screw worm flies still can be found in South and Central America, but they too may eventually be driven off the face of the earth by eradication programs.
The sterile male technique is one of the most effective means of wiping out insect populations. It involves the captive breeding of males of the insect species which are then treated with gamma radiation at doses that are not fatal to the insects, but cause sufficient genetic damage to make the insects incapable of producing viable offspring. These sterile males are then released into the environment where they mate with females. The females then lay eggs which do not hatch due to the condition of the males they mated with.
The intensive application of sterile male insects over the course of several consecutive seasons can completely eradicate species.
Colpocephalum californici (Condor Louse) – A parasite which preyed primarily on California Condors experienced a population bottleneck due to the scarcity of the host species. The California Condor has since rebounded, in part due to captive breeding and reintroduction. However, a combination of the period of low condor population and intentional de-lousing of captured and captive condors lead to the species becoming extinct.
The Guinea Worm (Dracunculiasis) – One of the nastiest human parasites to attack humans, the Guinea worm has plagued Sub-Saharan African for centuries. The parasite is introduced to humans by drinking water contaminated with the worm’s larva. The worm develops in the gut of the hapless host for several weeks before breaking through into the body cavity. Once in the body cavity, the fully developed female worm will actually seek out males of the species which mate inside the human body. It borrows through tissue until it makes its way to the lower portion of the body and erupts from the skin. Like a horror movie, the parasite pops out of the skin and in the process causes tissue damage and often opens up the host to infection.
However, the fact that the Guinea worm needs a host to reproduce and that the host is usually a human has proven to be its weakness. A combination of improvements in drinking water sanitation and filtering as well as the use of larvicide and monitoring for contamination has proven extremely effective in combating the worm. Since 1986, incidence of the worm has been cut by more than 99%. The parasite was once common in 20 Africa countries, but it is now only found in four. It has been eradicated from most of the continent and the remaining areas are being targeted for eradication.
The United Nations, the World Health Organization, The Carter Center and the governments of several African countries have committed toward the goal of complete eradication of the Guinea worm, which they believe is possible in just a few years.
American Chestnut Moth (Ectodemia castaneae) – This species of moth fed exclusively on chestnuts, making it an acute pest to chestnut growers. In the early 20th century a fungus was inadvertently imported into North America from Asia which decimated chestnut trees, nearly driving chestnut trees in the Americas to extinction. The trees were missed, but the moth that fed on them was not. Luckily, the American chestnut tree was not driven all the way to extinction and thanks to cultivation and fungus mitigation, they eventually bounced back. The moth, however, was gone for good. Today the fungus that was imported over a century ago remains a problem for American chestnut trees, but at least the moth does not.
Anyone lament the loss or impending loss of these species? I sure as hell don’t.
This entry was posted on Sunday, June 13th, 2010 at 10:53 am and is filed under Agriculture, Bad Science, Culture, Enviornment, Good Science, History, Misc. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
June 13th, 2010 at 11:28 am
Why do you hate polar bears?
Sorry, I had to beat the environmentalists to it.
Quote Comment
June 13th, 2010 at 11:38 am
BMS said:
If you ever encountered one, there’s a good likelihood you’d either hate them or be dead. I always found the fondness for polar bears a bit odd. They’re some of the most aggressive killing machines on earth. Many animals will attack humans to defend territory or because they feel threatened, but few will generally go after people as prey. Polar bears will. You see one, it’s likely to try to kill you.
That’s not even to mention they like seals, especially baby seals, which are easy to catch and full of tender fatty meat. The same organizations that call seal hunting murder seem to think it’s okay for a polar bear to kill dozens a year.
That said, I’ve got nothing against them. The reason they’re so aggressive is that they’re adapted to a very harsh environment where they can’t afford to pass up an opportunity for food. They’re just not the cute and cuddly things they’re made out to be,
Quote Comment
June 13th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
drbuzz0 said:
You mean that the Coca-Cola company lied to us?! Say it isn’t so!
Quote Comment
June 13th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Polar bears came into existance ~200 000 years ago, which is longer than most species last. They are believed to have evolved from brown bears trapped by glaciation.
If polar bears were the only reason not to melt the polar caps I’d say sod the polar bear. An arctic that isn’t covered by ice would be much more productive(in terms of photosynthesis), yielding more fish and allowing much easier shipping of goods between some destinations. I see no point in trying to preserve species in static equilibrium forever(of course, that never happens anyway; populations swing wildly even when humans get out of the way and leave them alone).
Quote Comment
June 13th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Why didn’t you mention the tsetse fly — the organism which is probably more responsible than anything else for keeping sub-Saharan Africa backward?
Quote Comment
June 13th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
George Carty said:
Yeah, I read about that and I’d certainly like to see it wiped off the face of the earth, but as far as I can tell, it has not yet reached the point where true extinction is feasible in the near future.
The sterile male technique has been used on the tsetse fly and has proven effective, but the problem with the technique is that it only can effectively clear the species for a few seasons and it will just reestablish itself from neighboring regions – unless is can be eradicated from all regions of contiguous inhabited lands.
I’d love to see that happen, of course. to do it, they’d have to do intensive sterile insect releases over large portions of Africa for several consecutive seasons. That is how the North American subspecies of screw worm fly was eradicated and how the program to do the same to the South American variation is planned to continue (the South American effort has not achieved eradication, as it has been less well funded and has been on-again-off-again a few times).
It would be worth it though. It would cost a lot for the few years it took to accomplish the eradication, but once achieved, the price would be puny for the elimination of the insect.
I’m a big fan of the sterile insect technique. It’s the one method that can solve the problem once and for all.
Quote Comment
June 13th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
No one is lamenting the loss of these species.
As for other less annoying ones that are vanishing, these have to be decided on a case-by-case bases. An organism that have evolved itself into a state where it can only survive in a narrowly delimited environment of which there is but one instance of, is doomed in the long run anyway. The same holds true for those species that have naturally developed very small gene-pools, the clock is running on them, and while I’m not suggesting they need to be forced into extinction, perhaps we should be expending efforts to save those that have a future.
Quote Comment
June 13th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
DV82XL said:
There are, believe it or not, some who do. There has been a movement for “Equal protection for all,” which claims that it is unethical for humans to try to eradicate parasites or pests, even if they have little role in the greater ecosystem and cause untold misery. There has been opposition to some programs which had hoped to use genetically engineered deer ticks (a variation on the sterile male technique) to eradicate Northeastern Deer Tick, which is the primary vector for lyme disease. This was met with, believe it or not, calls for conservation of the species and claims that this would make it endangered.
This seems to be intertwined with the voluntary human extinction movement, which holds that human activity and influence on nature is always a bad thing an that the only species that should be eliminated completely is humanity. (no word on whether they consider it sad that the death of all humans would inevitably lead to the death of human-specific pathogens or lice that have evolved to feed off of humans)
I read a page on the issue which mentioned the fact that all species go extinct eventually and likened it to death, saying that even though we all die, that does not justify murder and humans are essentially murdering other species by driving them to extinction and thus our only recourse is species suicide to protect the others.
Quote Comment
June 13th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
But, but, but… any one of these species could hold the cure for cancer.
I can’t find a reference to this now, but I remember a professor speaking on the topic of combined sewers (a fading practice of carrying both storm runoff and sanitary sewage in one system.) He said that San Francisco was updating their system to separate the two streams when they were met with resistance by some environmentalists who were concerned that it would adversely affect a population of sea urchins that had grown to rely on the raw sewage as a food source. Separating the wastewater from the storm water and treating it would rob that population of nutrients and threaten its existence. And after all, they could hold the cure for cancer… or AIDS… or ADHD… or something. Forget the benefit of ending the free discharge of heavy metals, dry cleaning chemicals, detergents, pathogens, motor oil, and other nice things that make their way into municipal sewage.
Quote Comment
June 13th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Yeah, combined sewers are a huge problem in older cities. Separating them can be enormously expensive when you’re dealing with cities that are already full of completely built roads, buildings and other underground infrastructure.
What happens is that the sewers go to sewage treatment plants which can handle the waste volume until you get any kind of a rain storm, in which case the volume of sewage drastically increases and the treatment plants can’t process it fast enough. The sewage backs up and pores out overflow tubes directly into the local body of water.
Perhaps some of the sea urchins would die, but not all of them. The practice had likely increased their numbers beyond what would naturally be found without the raw sewage.
Anyway, this problem is just huge in older cities. The environmentalists concerned about doing someting to stop it are on the wrong side, big time! Discharges of raw sewage into waterways is a very under-reported environmental problem.
Quote Comment
June 13th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
That’s the way I understood it. They formed thick mats of urchins that just don’t grow like that elsewhere. Whether the environmentalists’ concern was that it was a unique formation or that some speciation might have occured, I don’t really know.
Either way, any argument for accepting the known harm from pollution for some ethereal benefit derived from clinging to every vestige of biodiversity is specious at best.
Along similar lines, I’ve heard about thermoacidophiles being found in the waters adjacent to a sulpher depot in Galveston. While that is interesting, I wouldn’t scuttle efforts to clean up the site for the sake of preserving them.
Quote Comment
June 13th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
By far the most widespread, dangerous and destructive of species on Earth looks you in the face every time you use a mirror. Absolutely no other species on Earth comes even remotely close. We have harnessed the energy of fossil-fuels which has enabled us to wage a disastrously effective war against the natural world on multiple fronts and even against our own kind. This view is supported by extensive science. Alternative views are not objective, but anthropocentric.
Science tells us that we are winning the wars we are waging against the oceans.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_jackson.html
What Dr. Jackson says, encapsulates it all. The trouble is, that nobody is listening, it conflicts with our mindset. But Dr. Jackson isn’t alone. Thousands of world-class scientists world-wide are saying similar things about many different aspects of the world, but we don’t want to hear.
What happens when we have won all these wars? We, or at least our children and grandchildren will be eating jellyfish burgers! Ugh!
Quote Comment
June 14th, 2010 at 3:08 am
Amoeba said:
While I haven’t tried it in a burger, jellyfish was actually very nice when cooked in a noddle stir-fry.
Next time you watch a video talking about how we are destroying the world, I suggest you sit down with a nice jellyfish noodle stir-fry, and think about how you can help, rather than just screaming and crying about the problem.
At the very least, even if you don’t come up with any amazing ideas, at least you got a good meal out of it.
Quote Comment
June 14th, 2010 at 8:37 am
Here’s one to work on – Mormon Crickets. They are VERY plesant
———————————–
Some research indicates the Mormon cricket’s cannibalistic behavior causes swarming behavior. Crickets attack the cricket in front of them every few seconds and must move constantly forward to avoid attacks from behind.
When a large band crosses a road it can cause a safety hazard by causing distracted revulsion on the part of the driver, and by causing the road surface to become slick with their fluids.
Quote Comment
June 14th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Amoeba said:
While I do not disagree that humanity has caused a lot of undesirable changes to the earth, there ultimately is no such thing as destruction. There is only change. We can see things only from our own perspective which is never really objective. “science” cannot support that our own kind if destructive. For the algae or the jelly fish that are enabled, we’re not only not destructive, we’re very very constructive.
Any “change” humanity causes to the environment can be perceived as destructive, but it is really just a change to a system that is always in flux to begin with. We could dump all the sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere we want and call it damage, and to us, it would be, but to heat-loving, acid-loving life forms, it would be the greatest favor we could do them.
We are not at war with nature – we are nature. Just as beavers build dams. Our only question is to decide what changes we can consider positive or negative. The only thing that makes us any different from other species is we can work with a degree of planning, design and analysis that others can’t. We can generally foresee the changes we make and decide whether or not they’re desirable.
Of course, it is wise to stop and ask whether our plans and course of action are positive or negative from our perspective as humanity, but to wallow in self-loathing over our perceived damage to a system that is always renewing itself anyway is useless.
Quote Comment
June 14th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
I agree that there is no truly objective way of quantifying damage versus improvement aside from looking at it from the standpoint of humans, and as a human I don’t see why that is a problem.
Amoeba said:
Then what is the objective view? That human-based changes are inherantly bad? Isn’t it, if anything, anthropocentric to view the situation with the belief that tuna or dolphins are more desirable to jellyfish or algae?
Amoeba said:
Okay, that’s just idiotic. Nobody is waging a war against the ocean. The undesirable effects (undesirable from a human perspective, not from a jellyfish one or from an ocean one – the ocean does not care) are a result of the side effects of human activities.
I agree that for our own sake we should try to change things, but to make this out to be some kind of man versus sea kind of thing is just not realistic and is an appeal to emotion and anti-humanism. We shoot ourselves in the foot when we harm species we depend on or help those we consider pests and that’s for sure. So yeah, better fisheries management, sewage treatment and everything are all good things. still, it comes down to anthropocentric concerns no matter how you slice it.
Quote Comment
June 14th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
There will be reports of Angels attacking humans tomorrow.
Quote Comment
June 15th, 2010 at 3:01 am
No, according to SEELE and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the first Angel attack (by Sachiel) will be in 2015- and it will attack the city of New Tokyo III. However, Project E (for Evangelion) is well underway to prevent that from destroying the world.
(Man, am I an anime nerd or what).
Quote Comment
June 15th, 2010 at 3:56 am
Mr. Blue said:
Egads! New Tokyo III? How many Tokyos do we have to build before 2015? Clearly New Tokyos I, II, and III, but will there be more than one old Tokyo? Do we have to destroy each city before building the next? We’d better get crackin’.
Quote Comment
June 15th, 2010 at 4:28 am
Well, the first Tokyo was destroyed (along with a good part of the southern hemisphere) by the Second Impact in September 2000. Tokyo II is the current capitol, and Tokyo III (the one with the really cool giant underground space and retractable buildings) is still under construction…
(See Neon Genesis Evangelion for details… or not- the guy who made that anime was SERIOUSLY off his meds!)
Quote Comment
June 15th, 2010 at 6:27 am
I see. So we’re ten years behind schedule on the Second Impact and we haven’t even had the First Impact. I don’t think we’re gonna make it by 2015. I’m just sayin’.
Anyway, I had my fill of off-meds anime when I saw Urotsukidoji.
Quote Comment
June 15th, 2010 at 7:53 am
Mr. Blue said:
Uh, then we’re on Tokyo 4 because the first Tokyo was destroyed by firebombing in 1944 and 1945.
Quote Comment
June 15th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
I distinctly remember seeing film of Tokyo being destroyed several times when I was a child.
Godzilla and Mothra were found to be the guilty parties.
Quote Comment
June 15th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
According to my observations of both anime and giant monster films, Tokyo gets destroyed on a near weekly basis.
Not so good for regular folks, but great for construction workers.
Quote Comment
June 16th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Most polar bears actually do not see humans as prey. That’s mostly because most polar bears do not see humans at all, and just like us, they prefer to eat food they know, and they do seem to have a preference for fatty animals. Certain examples aside, humans tend to be fairly lean (compared to the bear’s regular diet of seals and such.) That’s not to say they won’t kill and eat us in a pinch; they do realize that anything moving is probably edible. But we’re not their main target.
The city of Churchill, Manitoba has polar bear problems, but even they don’t kill the bears. Instead, they train them to avoid human civilization. They run a “polar bear prison” where problem bears are incarcerated after being captured (usually in a live trap — seriously, they have live traps for animals of that size, made out of concrete sewer segments). Mostly, the bears come into town for garbage, not people. They’re opportunistic, and just like smaller bears, they’ve learned that human trash contains all sorts of tasty goodies that don’t even struggle. But any polar bear coming in to town is a problem, because they can very easily kill a person. So the bears are captured and thrown in prison. They are not exactly abused while in the prison, but they are also not treated kindly, and will be starved for the duration of their incarceration, to teach them that humans are not a food source. (This can last months; polar bears are capable of impressively long fasts during the lean months before the ice freezes and they can start hunting seals in earnest.)
I think we can be fond of animals even if they have the capability to kill us. I think tigers are positively gorgeous, for instance, and I’m rather fond of African lions. Their social structure is fascinating, and their methods of hunting prey are remarkably creative (albeit brutal; the way they take elephants is downright freaky, but very clever). And sometimes they become maneaters.
Just because they can kill us doesn’t mean we can’t like them or even be fond of them. It just means we have to have a very healthy respect for what they might do to us if we venture too close.
Quote Comment
June 16th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Calli Arcale said:
Maybe, I mean I figured polar bears for the kind of animal that will go after any small medium or large game they see, because they’re pretty much in an environment where you can;t be choosy about where you get nutrition from. If it moves and can be killed, it’s a source of nutrition, familiar or otherwise.
They have attempted to prey on conning towers and submarine rudders on more than one occasion.
In the Arctic travelers are advised to carry a fire arm in case they encounter a polar bear. I’m not aware of other bear species that are considered that dangerous. Black bears will usually turn tail and run if you yell at them and even grizzly bears are usually scared away by humans.
They are known to be cannibalistic at times, which is rare in large mammals. They’ll eat the pups of other polar bears. Also, they prey on seals and that includes baby seals, should they come on a nest of them. Baby seals are about the cutest most revered cuttie-cuddly animals around and I don’t see how anything that tears apart a live baby seal could be revered as cuddly and cute.
Quote Comment
June 17th, 2010 at 7:28 am
Polar bears are nasty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob_oD1IsYbE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0×8aNAC3NSs
Quote Comment