Oppo
Member
Yes. It's true.
It makes me extremely angry.
It's not fucking traditional medicine, it's boner pills for assholes.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
There are now just six Northern White Rhinos left on earth :(
- Thread starter Protein
- Start date
- Status
Yes. It's true.
It makes me extremely angry.
It's not fucking traditional medicine, it's boner pills for assholes.
Oppo
Member
They are the most valuable substance on earth.
And your line of thinking is what perpetuates part of the poaching trade.
gutter_trash
Banned
you're scum
QuicheFontaine
Member
I only did biology to high school level, but if I remember right 'natural selection' and 'artificial selection' are terms created to indicate when selection is occuring with or without human intervention. So no, the bolded is just you misusing a defined term.
I was just thinking about it, doesn't mean I think it's right. These acts are deplorable, especially considering that the people who buy these are in essence just snorting fingernails.
Artificial selection or breeding has nothing to do with this, there needs to be a purpose behind the selection that is oriented towards members of the same species in future generations.
CornBurrito
Member
If you bothered clicking the link you would see artificial selection = selective breeding.
AuthenticM
Member
Fuck poachers. They're even worse than paparazzi. I'd go medieval on their asses and poach their asses, see how they like it. Scum.
It's even more infuriating knowing for what they are being poached.
It's even more infuriating knowing for what they are being poached.
Everyone in this thread is confusing things that do happen for things that should happen.
No I'm not. Why do you get to define what should and shouldn't happen based on some evolutionary pretense?
I do not understand this, could you please explain? Wouldn't an individual death caused by individual actions still be the product of natural processes, from a deterministic point of view? Furthermore, wouldn't a global nuclear war be technically the product of individual actions? Or does natural selection only apply when it comes to species-wide extinction?
My knowledge of biology isn't the greatest, so I hope you do not mind.
You're doing it even more. No one here is saying this should happen, they're just saying that as bad as it is it's still natural selection.
You're right they're not, they're just making excuses for it.
Saying it's natural selection is simply the truth, if you distort that into thinking it's an excuse is because you have preconceptions.
Well then if you agree it's just as bad as other people seem to think it is, then what's the point in bringing it up? To give it a name? If that's all you're trying to do, then fine. Some posts here just didn't seem to be going in that direction.
Oppo
Member
Here are some things I'd like to see applied to control poaching of rhino horns:
- Poison the horns. or render them 'unusable' for powder purposes (some reserves are trying this now). rhino horns are sort of unique in that they are not actually attached to the skull, so there are actually options here that won't harm the rhino. I've seen dyes used for instance.
- Clone the horns. I mean it's just a blob of keratin really. but of course it's not just about the actual material for the buyers, it's about the fact that it's SUPER RARE. if it wasn't rare they wouldn't care. So don't tell them.
- A drone army. not kidding. send out hundreds of drones with cameras and tasers.
It's a very difficult problem financially since there is enormous motivation to sell the horns because of their value, but defending the rhinos from poaching, there's no money in that at all. it's pure benevolence, and some gov't irritation at black market trade, that gets them the security they have now. (which is not insubstantial by the way. I met an anti-poaching guy in South Africa, on the job, this year. Think he was ex Israeli army. Anyways, he had a vest on, couple of shotguns, rifle + sidearm when I met him.)
- Poison the horns. or render them 'unusable' for powder purposes (some reserves are trying this now). rhino horns are sort of unique in that they are not actually attached to the skull, so there are actually options here that won't harm the rhino. I've seen dyes used for instance.
- Clone the horns. I mean it's just a blob of keratin really. but of course it's not just about the actual material for the buyers, it's about the fact that it's SUPER RARE. if it wasn't rare they wouldn't care. So don't tell them.
- A drone army. not kidding. send out hundreds of drones with cameras and tasers.
It's a very difficult problem financially since there is enormous motivation to sell the horns because of their value, but defending the rhinos from poaching, there's no money in that at all. it's pure benevolence, and some gov't irritation at black market trade, that gets them the security they have now. (which is not insubstantial by the way. I met an anti-poaching guy in South Africa, on the job, this year. Think he was ex Israeli army. Anyways, he had a vest on, couple of shotguns, rifle + sidearm when I met him.)
You'd think then a poacher would simply cut off the horn, which does you know, regrow, and not kill the rhino ensuring it will never grow again and eventually there will be none left, leaving you out of business.
It's like a wig maker murdering people to cut their hair, instead of just, like, cutting their hair.
CornBurrito
Member
I guess me saying that I don't find this extinction to be good and that humans can and should prevent it is excusing it. Huh.
thesuperfunk
Member
Very sad 
An idiotic and ignorant point of view.
I've seen a lot of stupid posts on this forum over the years, but this one takes the cake as the most simple-minded post I've ever seen.
There was a person who obtained rhino horns that way by cutting it off a few spaces above the base ensuring a continous supply.
But poachers usually cut off the entire horn (more value) which would require mutilating the rhino in the process.
Your inability to articulate even the most basic argument in your drive-by post would tend to indicate a pretty strong case for projection.
CornBurrito
Member
Well the thing here is that the rhino horns aren't helping improve the quality of human life. They aren't useful as food, shelter, or medicine. It is needless slaughter.
And also horns can be obtained without having to kill the rhino.
Ayato Kanzaki
Member
"Natural selection" is the disappearance of species that are unable to adapt to their surroundings, or are replaced by improved species.
So, how is what's happening anywhere close to "natural selection"? Are you going to argue that they are going extinct because those Rhinos lack a skin capable to deflecting bullets?
CornBurrito
Member
Because humans are a part of nature. The poachers in a very real sense represent a selective force.
You keep confusing this statement with "they should be able to adapt."
Natural selection can and has led to extinction. Species have been unable to cope with selective pressures before humans existed.
Warning: I am not saying this is a good thing
BTW your definition is wrong. Or please post which biology textbook or paper you got it from.
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
Even if you count humans as a part of nature, it's still not natural selection.
Necromanti
Member
I think it would be more accurate to state that humans are an invasive species in the ecosystem in question.
I wasn't specifically calling you out, but since you brought it up:
That sure sounds like an excuse to me.
SliceSabre
Banned
Sad that they're all almost gone. Hopefully they won't get the rest of them.
CornBurrito
Member
I guess it could. That wasn't really my intent though.
CornBurrito
Member
Why not? I would like a legit scientific explanation.
Source?
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
Natural selection is a process relating to heritable variation and adaptation. Humans killing a rhino for their horns has nothing to do with that.
Exactly. I've been saying that left and right.
Strangely enough truth isn't achieved by repetition.
cpp_is_king
Member
You haven't said that a single time. Not one single time in this entire thread have you said that, I even just went back and looked at all your posts just to make sure. What you have said left and right is that killing other animals isn't "natural", using a definition of natural based on socially accepted norms.
So, with all that aside, I'm going to eat crow. Note that this is not an admission that you are right, because you are not right. Whether or not something is acceptable behavior has nothing to do with whether or not it's natural selection. AllIsOneIsNone, on the other hand, is right.
After doing my own research, I found this, which ultimate convinced me, and then this to further cement the idea.
CornBurrito
Member
You posted "you are saying this is good?????!!!" and reaction gifs. Stop patting yourself on the back.
Horn size is a heritable trait. I imagine there could be a mutant rhino without a horn. Humans uniting for horns would select for rhinos with smaller horns or without horns. The rhino evolved from a hornless ancestor btw.
This is actually a current hypothesis with elephants. It seems populations are converging on smaller and smaller tusk sizes in response to poaching. Or in short, natural selection. http://www.sabisabi.com/wildfacts/functional-evolution-in-animals
I am speaking a bit out of this specific case here. I never get the worry over extinction outside of the context of ruining a natural ecology. Species go extinct all the time. Assuming their disappearance doesn't have a negative impact on the environment, why does it matter?
With that said, none of that is meant to defend poaching in any way.
With that said, none of that is meant to defend poaching in any way.
....oh?
... so. Either the both of you can't read a lick (which based on the thread and where we ended up on the subject, I am inclined to believe that is the case), or you are really just not comfortable with being wrong on the internet. Either way, you are only doing yourself a huge fucking disservice.
Hey, it's just natural selection.
Why exactly aren't the conditions humans put onto other species a part of natural selection? Are we not a part of nature? I'm not trying to argue it being natural selection means we aren't accountable. I just think us changing the environment or over hunting is natural selection in the same way animals can over hunt or destroy an environment for other species.
CornBurrito
Member
Nowhere do you explain why it isn't natural selection, other than just shouting it isn't because it is humans. As if we weren't a part of nature.
So provide scientific definitions and logical reasoning. Or don't and keep yelling and getting mad that I find the death of these rhinos just as abhorrent as you but don't consider humans to be separate from nature.
It's simple. The conditions we are speaking of (killing rhinos for horn "medicine"on the black market) aren't part of nature. We don't need these horns in any way, shape or form to live. They don't even improve life a little bit.
So now it's I did say it, I just didn't post any sources? Gotcha. I was also under the assumption mistakenly common sense would take it from there. Sometimes when the obvious is stated out loud, nothing else needs to be said. Again, a mistake on my part. Also, I'm not angry. Are you?
CornBurrito
Member
That isn't the definition of natural. Humans are a part of nature. We are animals. Our behaviors and desires are thus natural. These desires and behaviors can be bad, but they are still natural.
Dolphins kill babies for fun and also rape. Is that unnatural because it doesn't improve their life? Dolphins don't need to do those things to live either.
cpp_is_king
Member
At this point it's just down to a semantic issue. Biodiversity and natural selection cannot exist without each other. But natural selection refers to a very specific genetic process of combining two sets of genes together through reproduction, mixed in with some random mutation, and then specific genes win out over time. So if the question is "Is the very specific and well-defined act of humans killing white rhinos natural selection?" then the answer seems to be no, because the specific act of murder does not involve reproduction.
On the other hand, the results of that action will certainly affect natural selection going forward, because a species (or subspecies, to be more precise) going extinct will affect overall biodiversity, which in turn feeds back into natural selection. But if we consider two alternate phrasings of the original question:
1) Did the rhinos become extinct as a result of natural selection?
2) Will the extinction of the rhinos contribute to the process of natural selection in the future?
Then the answer to both questions seems to be yes. In the first case, everything is a "result" of natural selection, even if only indirectly. The rhinos were not able to adapt quickly enough to grow smaller horns, for example. One way in which they might have done this would have been if they bred with other rhinos which had not had such coveted horns, and then (through natural selection), their horns may have started becoming less prominent.
JJDinomite
Banned
As much as it sucks, there will be another thousand or so species that we lose this year. And the next year. And so on. It is what it is.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked