Saddest extinction to you?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Auk

Great_Auk_%28Pinguinis_impennis%29_specimen%2C_Kelvingrove%2C_Glasgow_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1108249.jpg


The last colony of great auks lived on Geirfuglasker (the "Great Auk Rock") off Iceland. This islet was a volcanic rock surrounded by cliffs which made it inaccessible to humans, but in 1830 the islet submerged after a volcanic eruption, and the birds moved to the nearby island of Eldey, which was accessible from a single side. When the colony was initially discovered in 1835, nearly fifty birds were present. Museums, desiring the skins of the auk for preservation and display, quickly began collecting birds from the colony.[67] The last pair, found incubating an egg, was killed there on 3 July 1844, on request from a merchant who wanted specimens, with Jón Brandsson and Sigurður Ísleifsson strangling the adults and Ketill Ketilsson smashing the egg with his boot.[68] Great auk specialist John Wolley interviewed the two men who killed the last birds,[69] and Ísleifsson described the act as follows:

The rocks were covered with blackbirds [referring to Guillemots] and there were the Geirfugles ... They walked slowly. Jón Brandsson crept up with his arms open. The bird that Jón got went into a corner but [mine] was going to the edge of the cliff. caught it close to the edge – a precipice many fathoms deep. The black birds were flying off. I took him by the neck and he flapped his wings. He made no cry. I strangled him.[5]

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_auk
 
I can't fathom how this is even possible. Did they just shoot pellets in the sky?

The professionals and amateurs together outflocked their quarry with brute force. They shot the pigeons and trapped them with nets, torched their roosts, and asphyxiated them with burning sulfur. They attacked the birds with rakes, pitchforks, and potatoes. They poisoned them with whiskey-soaked corn. Learning of some of these methods, Potawatomi leader Pokagon despaired. “These outlaws to all moral sense would touch a lighted match to the bark of the tree at the base, when with a flash—more like an explosion—the blast would reach every limb of the tree,” he wrote of an 1880 massacre, describing how the scorched adults would flee and the squabs would “burst open upon hitting the ground.” Witnessing this, Pokagon wondered what type of divine punishment might be “awaiting our white neighbors who have so wantonly butchered and driven from our forests these wild pigeons, the most beautiful flowers of the animal creation of North America.”

From here.
 
Let's just say that I care about people a lot more than animals.

People are animals and the suffering of a cow is as horrible to witness as that of a child. For good measure, I'll throw in some appeals to authority. Take it away, Schopenhauer...

"Compassion for animals is intimately connected with goodness of character, and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man."

"Because Christian morality leaves animals out of account, they are at once outlawed in philosophical morals; they are mere 'things,' mere means to any ends whatsoever. They can therefore be used for vivisection, hunting, coursing, bullfights, and horse racing, and can be whipped to death as they struggle along with heavy carts of stone. Shame on such a morality that is worthy of pariahs, and that fails to recognize the eternal essence that exists in every living thing, and shines forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes that see the sun!"
 
People are animals and the suffering of a cow is as horrible to witness as that of a child. For good measure, I'll throw in some appeals to authority. Take it away, Schopenhauer...

"Compassion for animals is intimately connected with goodness of character, and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man."

"Because Christian morality leaves animals out of account, they are at once outlawed in philosophical morals; they are mere 'things,' mere means to any ends whatsoever. They can therefore be used for vivisection, hunting, coursing, bullfights, and horse racing, and can be whipped to death as they struggle along with heavy carts of stone. Shame on such a morality that is worthy of pariahs, and that fails to recognize the eternal essence that exists in every living thing, and shines forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes that see the sun!"

Hitler loved animals.
 
Hitler loved animals.

If cruel to animals, then a cruel man.
If X then Y.
All that means is that if X is true then Y is necessarily true. X can be false and Y can be either true or false.

To demonstrate, "If I eat a muffin, then I am not hungry." I did not eat a muffin does not entail that I am hungry. I could have eaten something else.
 

dVJDJvg.jpg


The Aurochs. When you think of domestication and how ubiquitous cows, bulls, have been to humanity the world over and then think that we killed the wild ancestor from which they were domesticated and descended from forever, it's just sad.

Imagine if there were no more wolves and all we were left with were dogs that are only remotely like the wild ancestor that nature and evolution had created.

Sea-Cow-Bering-Island-Final-small.jpeg


The other sad extinction I read about is probably the Steller's Sea Cow. Within 27 years of Europeans finding the animal, it was hunted to extinction because it was so big and slow moving, it was easily captured and hunted for its flesh, it's fat, it's meat etc. It's closest relative is probably the Dugong now, but it was the largest mammal outside of whales. Just sad.
I'm sad I'll never taste what Great auks, Aurochs, and Seacows taste like. Apparently they were very, very tasty.
 
If cruel to animals, then a cruel man.
If X then Y.
All that means is that if X is true then Y is necessarily true. X can be false and Y can be either true or false.

To demonstrate, "If I eat a muffin, then I am not hungry." I did not eat a muffin does not entail that I am hungry. I could have eaten something else.

Nuh uh. You said compassion for animals is intimately connected with goodness of character. That's the basis for "cruel to animals -> cruel to man", and if you ignore it then you throw that out too. I'm positing that being good to animals does not make you a good person, so being ambivalent towards animals does not make you a bad person.
 
A few years back I went to the Natural History Musuem in London and the exhibit that filled me with the most awe was Megatherium, a giant land sloth.

The skeleton is fucking massive and mightily impressive, but the fact that they only went extinct about 10,000 years ago blew my mind. Dinosaurs are amazing of course, but the fact that they were so far in the past makes them lose some of their majesty for me. The fact that man was co-existing with this huge mammal for a long, long time was amazing. Can you imagine seeing this thing up close?

20090421130214-megatherium-300x258.jpg


megatherium-size.jpg


tumblr_mn7bupHHmA1qbyf2jo1_500.jpg
 
Let's just say that I care about people a lot more than animals.

You can care about humans more than other animals, but having no compassion for any other living being that doesn't "serve" us is sad. The world would be a better place if so many people didn't have this brand of selfishness.
 
The thing I don't get is that they make money from the fins, no? Why wouldn't they want to help keep sharks from going extinct if they could keep making money off of them?
I mean, you're talking about markets who thinks rhino horn shavings will make them sexual dynamos. You expect them to think logically about environmental sustainability?
 
Nuh uh. You said compassion for animals is intimately connected with goodness of character. That's the basis for "cruel to animals -> cruel to man", and if you ignore it then you throw that out too. I'm positing that being good to animals does not make you a good person, so being ambivalent towards animals does not make you a bad person.

Schopenhauer said it. I agree with it. Intimate connections could easily be interpreted to include a necessary but not sufficient condition. I'd argue that is what he meant by inteimate connection, especially since Schopenhauer's view of morality relied on understanding the commonality of all living things. Given Hitler's approach to large groups of humanity, I think it is pretty clear that the realization of shared existence that underpinned the importance of animals in Schopenhauer's system wasn't part of Hitler's worldview.
 
Men fucked up, we're sorry, let's talk about awesome animals and enough of the trolling bickering.

Imagine you're crossing the Mississippi River, going west towards the Great Plains. It's hundreds of thousands of years ago.

It almost looks like the savannah of Africa. Elephants, lions, cheetahs, antelope.

I think this is the coolest thing in the world.

Did you know that the pronghorn likely evolved to run so fast because they were trying to outrun American Cheetahs?

american-cheetah.jpg
 
You can care about humans more than other animals, but having no compassion for any other living being that doesn't "serve" us is sad. The world would be a better place if so many people didn't have this brand of selfishness.

For whom would it be a better place? The animals I don't care about? Sure. But I don't care about them and you can't convince me to. I care about people. I care about making the world a better place for people, and giving special treatment to animals is a pretty low priority when it comes to making life for people better.

Schopenhauer said it. I agree with it. Intimate connections could easily be interpreted to include a necessary but not sufficient condition. I'd argue that is what he meant by inteimate connection, especially since Schopenhauer's view of morality relied on understanding the commonality of all living things. Given Hitler's approach to large groups of humanity, I think it is pretty clear that the realization of shared existence that underpinned the importance of animals in Schopenhauer's system wasn't part of Hitler's worldview.

I know you were quoting Schopenhauer. You said it as your own belief and that's what I meant. But thank you for trying to clarify.

I think "commonality of all living things" is a huge generalization that's cute to say but isn't ultimately true. To give a far-reaching example, we know that there's life on other planets somewhere out there. But that doesn't effect out ecology at all right now. None whatsoever. My life is not worse for a lack of dodo birds in it. I've never seen a real giraffe either, just pictures and drawings and animations of both.

If the world were in a place where (almost) every human was living well and good, then I would adjust my focus to a lower priority like making sure animals are all doing okay. But it's not in that place. So for now I'll just focus on making people's lives better. It's not like I'm going out of my way to hurt animals. I'm not an animal hater. I just have more important things to focus on as far as far reaching issues go.
 
Let's just say that I care about people a lot more than animals.
Let's not mix up caring for biodiversity with loving pets. Any sane individual interested in preserving our planet and our role in it should worry about species becoming extinct. I do and I hate pets because their domesticated nature means they have a huge environmental footprint.
 
You can care about humans more than other animals, but having no compassion for any other living being that doesn't "serve" us is sad. The world would be a better place if so many people didn't have this brand of selfishness.
I wish compassion and selfishness weren't brought into discussions about biodiversity. They only muddy the waters and turn the discussion into a clash between subjective opinions and philosophies, when it always ought to be about science. Biodiversity has implications for our own survival on this planet.
 
I think "commonality of all living things" is a huge generalization that's cute to say but isn't ultimately true. To give a far-reaching example, we know that there's life on other planets somewhere out there. But that doesn't effect out ecology at all right now. None whatsoever. My life is not worse for a lack of dodo birds in it. I've never seen a real giraffe either, just pictures and drawings and animations of both.

Okay, I think I understand where you're coming from. What I don't get is whether you think suffering of distant humans is more important than suffering of distant animals that you've never seen. Do you care about some humans more than others? What if the deaths of some people you don't know improved the lives of those you do know? What if it was a choice between an animal that was important to an ecosystem and a human that wasn't?

If a moose was directly in front of you and was suffering and you had the means to help it but it served no purpose in your ecology, you think you'd have no obligation to help it?

Ultimately, we're going to disagree, because you appear to be a utilitarian and I'm arguing in favor of moral sense, but I am curious how the role within an ecosystem determines your moral obligations.
 
I wish compassion and selfishness weren't brought into discussions about biodiversity. They only muddy the waters and turn the discussion into a clash between subjective opinions and philosophies, when it always ought to be about science. Biodiversity has implications for our own survival on this planet.

It's all too abstract, though, like trying to predict the weather or measure the butterfly effect. What bad changes have come about since the extinction of the dodo or any of the dinosaurs? I can think of lots of good changes from not having megafauna threaten and destroy our towns and fields, but what bad changes have there been?

I know I have a biting tone and I'm sorry for that, but I'm genuinely curious here. Explain to me why it's bad that the dodo doesn't exist any more.

Okay, I think I understand where you're coming from. What I don't get is whether you think suffering of distant humans is more important than suffering of distant animals that you've never seen. Do you care about some humans more than others? What if the deaths of some people you don't know improved the lives of those you do know? What if it was a choice between an animal that was important to an ecosystem and a human that wasn't?

If a moose was directly in front of you and was suffering and you had the means to help it but it served no purpose in your ecology, you think you'd have no obligation to help it?

Ultimately, we're going to disagree, because you appear to be a utilitarian and I'm arguing in favor of moral sense, but I am curious how the role within an ecosystem determines your moral obligations.

Yes, I think suffering of any human that's not self-inflicted is worse than suffering of any animal. I care about my family and friends more than I care about other humans, definitely. Not to the extent that I would wish the death of someone, though, unless they were causing deaths themself.

If a moose was hurting in front of me, I wouldn't know how to help it. I wouldn't know who to call. If I wasn't busy, I would probably try to at least look up who to call.
 
I'm on my phone and can't post pictures, but all the giant tortoise species that humans drove to extinction. The meiolania, the collosal atlas tortoise, the many Galapagos tortoise species we didn't save.

The meiolania especially was so cool, it had Bowser like horns and a tail club.
 
A few years back I went to the Natural History Musuem in London and the exhibit that filled me with the most awe was Megatherium, a giant land sloth.

The skeleton is fucking massive and mightily impressive, but the fact that they only went extinct about 10,000 years ago blew my mind. Dinosaurs are amazing of course, but the fact that they were so far in the past makes them lose some of their majesty for me. The fact that man was co-existing with this huge mammal for a long, long time was amazing. Can you imagine seeing this thing up close?

Imagine the possibility!

sloth-cat-shh-no-tears-just-dreams.gif
 
I'm going to cry when elephants are extinct

Such cool animals

Insane to think that in my lifetime elephants have the potential to go extinct. Something that seems so common and widespread and is god damn children's books!

Makes me wonder what they'll replace for the letter E.
I swear, if you say E is for extinct...
 
It probably tasted good

McDonald's Dodo Nuggets?

It did not taste good actually. It wasn't as big as people might think and was an endemic species from a tiny island far removed from the Western world(which I happen to hail from incidentally).

I suppose its claim to fame comes from the expression 'As dead as the Dodo' or Alice in Wonderland.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom