“Every day there are species disappearing, and new species are emerging” may not be true. The academic circles have great differences on the speed of species generation: some scholars believe that about 2 to 3 new species are born every year, while humans currently cause The rate of extinction of the species may range from 20,000 to 120,000 per year. Although these extinct species are mainly species whose habitats are restricted to tropical rain forests and have small populations, their potential scientific value, medicinal value, aesthetic value, etc. Will still be lost with extinction. Other scholars believe that the rate of species generation can be gradually accelerated to adapt to the extinction rate caused by humans, reaching 40,000 to 140,000 species per year. In a hundred years, humans will be surrounded by millions of species that they have participated in. This may be the fastest species generation rate in the history of the earth, and it can be called the “Anthropocene Explosion”, which is stronger than the Cambrian Explosion. In this case, “Why should humans save endangered species” has nothing to do with your previous two sentences. You can intuitively understand: 1. This is because humans can. 2. Some people hope to benefit from saving endangered species. This includes but is not limited to money, reputation, scientific research results, social attention, sense of fulfillment, sense of accomplishment, self-realization, and helping others to realize themselves. “Isn’t it more appropriate for organisms to adapt to the ecology”, that’s not true. You cannot guarantee that the result of adaptation is what you want. The emergence of species that are highly adapted to the human living environment may not be a good thing for humans. Consider “multidrug-resistant pathogens that can grow in large numbers in human settlements” and “can resist all insecticides that are more efficient than killing people.” Pests of chemical agents, “bacteria that can decompose concrete” and the like. If you believe that “the extinction of species caused by human activities is also part of natural selection”, then “humans try to save a species through technology” is also part of natural selection. If an issue is to be discussed seriously, double standards should be avoided. “There are tens of millions of species in this world, do they all need to be saved?” On the one hand, it depends on how capable humans are. On the other hand, it also depends on these species themselves. Traits that generate a willingness to save and can cooperate with the rescue actions of human beings (such as the beloved appearance of giant pandas) bring survival advantages, and “striving to be saved by humans to improve their survival and reproduction ability” can be natural A form of choice. “Doesn’t this violate the natural law of survival of the fittest by natural selection” is a common misunderstanding of natural selection among the people. The reality is that the Earth’s biosphere is very suitable. “The weak eating the strong” is not fixed. Natural selection is not the “survival of the fittest”. It is more like the “survival of the lazy”. “The fancy and flamboyant species are in large numbers under the influence of changes in the natural environment. Extinction, only a few weed species with high environmental tolerance, slow movement, or tiny body are left, and then it took them 10 million years to replant a variety of species” events. The definition of “the fittest” is vague and unstable, and will constantly change according to environmental changes. There is competition among individuals, populations, and species, but there is no evidence to support that “competition is the driving force for the evolution of large groups”. It is rarely found in nature that species competing for the same ecological niche will eliminate their competitors, and competition is more common. The failed species change their habits (for example, to separate from the victor in the circadian rhythm) to become a different ecological niche. There is no long-term foresight and no specific direction for evolution. You have been “natural selection” for a long time, and the results may be beyond your expectations. The fossil record in the stratum seems to show that the multicellular organisms that have appeared in the history of the earth have at least 98% are extinct[1], among which the phenomenon of “sexual selection within the species itself leads the species to a dead end” repeatedly. Paleontological studies have shown that some drastic changes in the history of the earth seem to have made certain species’ traits that can make the species “higher, faster and stronger” under daily conditions become a burden when the environment changes, leading to its extinction. . Many species that survived the mass extinction have not restored their original numbers and diversity, and sometimes they have the performance of “the number continues to decline and extinction after a delay”-the pursuit of “strongness” or “highness to the existing environment” “Adaptation” may lead to “accumulation and hardship”. For example, when the “dinosaurs became extinct”, the large-footed, large fish, and aquatic cold-blooded reptiles in the ocean [Bardet, 1994] can survive for 1 to 3 years without food. Bernard et al. [2010] found that Shanglong and Mosasaur, which can swim quickly and freely, may be warm-blooded animals with a higher metabolic rate, so they are more likely to starve to death. Obviously, “the ability to quickly and freely swim through warm blood and high metabolic rate” can help you obtain food and fight “excellent traits” under daily conditions, but it is brought about by the impact of a celestial body that cannot directly destroy you. Impacting the winter may make you starve to death by your own high metabolic rate. You can refer to: Gu Ming Di Lian: End of Mesozoic Era: K-Pg (Cretaceous-Paleogene) extinction event review. The so-called strength in “The weak and the strong” cannot be simply judged from the angle of body size, strength, etc., or even biomass. Killing is judged recently-otherwise, the true ruler of the East African grasslands is Echinococcus granulosus. It uses a little biomass to kill some lions and hyenas like sacs. The direction of energy flow also does not explain the problem. For example, in the cold temperate summer, snakes can eat rats, and in winter, rats can eat snakes. Many creatures do not need to rely on power, energy, or force to prey, defend themselves, and transform the environment. There are a lot of symbiosis between living things, some are mutually beneficial, some are partial, and some are just harmless. If you are a human being, you are a multicellular organism, and there are many microorganisms in your body. The total number of them is more than your human cells, and there are more than 1,000 ancient retroviruses in your genome. Fragments, some of which govern your important physiological processes. You yourself are the product of mutual help among groups. The enormous power that humanity now possesses is likely to come from the ability of human beings to “create fictitious concepts and share these concepts to establish extensive cooperation.” Looking at the mitochondria and chloroplasts under the endosymbiosis theory, it is obvious that mutual help among groups is the mainstream of the earth’s biosphere. Sexual selection, reproductive selection, and artificial selection are regarded as sub-categories of generalized natural selection in some theories. Natural selection in a narrow sense refers to ecological selection [2], which focuses on the differences in the survival rate of individuals in the natural environment. Natural selection is the main mechanism of evolution, and survival through natural selection is called adaptation. This doesn’t care about strengths and weaknesses at all, the fittest are not dead yet. Sexual selection is the difference in the ability to obtain mating partners, and reproductive selection is the difference in the number of offspring that can be produced. Artificial selection applies the concept of natural selection to creatures kept in human captivity, such as poultry, livestock, pets, and crop breeding. By definition, artificial selection does not include “humans lead to the extinction of wild animals.”

zhiwo

By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
helpmekim
6 months ago

“Isn’t it more appropriate for organisms to adapt to the ecology? Extinction is the result of natural selection.” This makes sense, but I suggest you think about it from another angle. If humans are at risk of extinction, would you still agree with this sentence? Whether protecting the environment or saving endangered animals, of course it is ultimately for our own benefit. So the key here is not necessarily which species is endangered and extinct, but what it means behind this: Will so many living things become extinct, will it damage the stability of the ecosystem, and whether it is possible to cause ecological disasters and adversely affect it? To our human life? I’m afraid this problem can’t be easily ignored, right? And having said that, “violating the natural law of survival of the fittest by natural selection of things” is a very strange statement. According to this logic, don’t humans domesticating all kinds of crops, poultry and livestock as food sources also violate the laws of nature? Why don’t you learn how primitive people are, drink blood and go hungry? Natural selection of the fittest survives, starving to death deserves it.

heloword
6 months ago

The key point is that the current extinction of many species is not because they have no ability to adapt to changes in the environment, but because human activities have not given them time to adapt and evolve. Moreover, many animals at the top of the food chain do not just exist for being beautiful, mighty, competing with humans for space or prey, or threatening human safety. Their existence is an essential part of a healthy ecosystem. And humans also need a healthy ecosystem. In the final analysis, the reason for utilitarianism is to protect the ecological environment and to protect animals is to protect humans themselves. In fact, for the earth, even the extinction of existing species is not a problem, it is nothing more than another round of evolution when the conditions are right. But not for us humans. After all, we still have to live on the earth, subject to the influence and limitations of the natural environment.

helpyme
6 months ago

I am not professional. But there are a few points to understand: 1. The current extinction of most species is due to human activities. 2. The rate of extinction is much faster than the rate of production. 3. Species extinction doesn’t matter to nature, it’s a big deal to start from scratch, but this may finally induce the extinction of mankind. After all, human beings are so little concerned about this. 4. Species have a high intellectual value. After all, it took hundreds of millions of years to spread to the present. There must be a little bit of information. You see, a civilization for five thousand years thinks it is amazing.

sina156
6 months ago

More in-depth reasons, other respondents analyzed well. I will simply mention a more superficial reason, right? Every day, species are disappearing, and new species are born. At first glance, it seems that there is really no loss? Dodo, passenger pigeon, finless porpoise, thylacine, white sturgeon, etc. are all extinct. These famous species were all extinct due to human beings. Are there any new island wingless birds in the world? Are there new large-scale migrating birds appearing? Are there new predatory marsupials? Or, at least, are there any signs of re-evolution of these species? There are many, many not so famous, but the same ecological niche or even more important creatures? Can you really make up for what you have lost? There are new species, but in addition to human-made livestock and crops, that is, microbes, insects and the like. And it may be far below the rate of extinction. Do you accept this kind of “natural selection and survival of the fittest”?

yahoo898
6 months ago

Because humans are now not sure whether the currently disappearing species disappeared due to human influence. It is true that nature continues to have species disappear and new species are born. But human beings have not yet been able to adapt to all conditions of the earth’s environment. Mankind now only knows that human beings can survive under the conditions of the earth’s climate for the past few thousand years and tens of thousands of years. But mankind is afraid that if the earth’s climate and environment changes suddenly, then mankind may have to GAMEOVER and the diversity of earth’s species is one of the key elements of whether the earth’s environment changes. In the past tens of thousands of years, humans have not interfered in the earth’s environment. New species continue to emerge and become extinct, but humans are fine. However, under the intervention of human activities in the past 100 years, more species have become extinct. Then it is unknown whether the earth’s environment will change and whether humans will be fine. Mankind protects endangered species. It really does not know whether a certain species is going to die out in nature or because of human activities. So we divide this species to be extinct into two situations. 1. Without human intervention, this species will also die out. Then humans let them survive, is there any harm? Most of them are not, because this is a species that was originally to be eliminated by nature. If humans let them survive, they can only be the existence of very small ethnic groups, and they will not overflow. It affects nature, so there is no danger. 2. Because of human intervention, this species will die out. Then this species may be able to adapt to the natural environment for a long time, and they may be part of the natural environment balance in which humans can survive, so let it die. It may be possible to promote the environment from the environment that humans are familiar with and can survive to the environment that humans cannot survive. This is very dangerous. Therefore, whether this species is wanted by nature or by human beings. It may be difficult for humans to figure it out at present, but trying to protect it from extinction is to reduce the risk of nature changing to an environmental state in which humans cannot survive. The extinction of several species does not matter to the earth, nor does it matter to nature. However, the state of nature in which mankind can survive is very limited, so it cannot be changed at will. It is necessary to maintain the state of the past as much as possible. Therefore, mankind must protect endangered animals and plants.

leexin
6 months ago

No new species have been created, they have been there just when we discovered them.
Why save endangered species? Because we humans are the culprits that make them endangered. You can’t just throw out the phrase “survival of the natural selection of the fittest” after they become like this. Please be sure to stop this American behavior.

greatword
6 months ago

Species alternation is a normal phenomenon, and it should indeed be accepted. The main problem is that the emergence of humans has broken the rhythm of the normal alternation of species. As a powerful species, human beings surpassed the space that all species could occupy in the past, which has brought tremendous pressure on other species. The biosphere on the earth is actually a crisscross system, and there are direct or indirect influences between life. Humans have realized their “lethal power”, so they hope to do some work to delay the rate of species extinction, so that the entire ecology can maintain a balance. The emergence of life is never isolated. They are constantly evolving from point to surface, from simple to complex, and use each other in the process of evolution, thus forming many material and energy conversion systems between various life forms. These systems are the “food chain” of the Earth’s biosphere as we know it. We can regard the reproduction of each species as the horizontal extension of the material form, that is, the “material reserve”; the food chain composed of different species is regarded as the vertical transmission of energy between different material forms, that is, the “material and Energy Conversion”. Different food chains can have parallel relationships (non-competitive relationships), or cross or partially overlap relationships (competitive relationships). Such a crisscross network forms a circular system of material and energy storage, flow and conversion on the earth. Most species cannot leave this life system. They must live in an environment where they can get enough food. This means that they must build their own recipes from the existing environment. As a result, they have formed with the environment and other surrounding species. Symbiosis of mutual dependence. Different types of species will be distributed in different geographical environments, and they will obtain the food they need, thus forming an ecological environment containing different species in different regions.

loveyou
6 months ago

This is determined by human nature (or humane characteristics); humans transform the environment and maintain the environment, not for them to obey the laws of nature, allow them to be produced and extinct; in addition to the laws of nature, the initiative of mankind gradually plays a more important role in it. If we only obey the laws of nature, the endangered species can only disappear completely; but if the initiative of mankind is also playing a role, the endangered species can be saved by mankind with a high probability; this is the behavior of mankind to transform the world One, not an act of human inaction;

strongman
6 months ago

Because the speed of death is much greater than the speed of new life. But in fact, on the scale of the universe, human rescue measures are almost meaningless. We all know that cells can continue to differentiate and evolve. Even if all the animals on this earth die, it only takes hundreds of millions of years to evolve new cells and new lives. Therefore, human beings are not saving the earth, but only saving their own emotions for the earth, just like a grown-up boy carefully storing and protecting his childhood cards, nothing more…

stockin
6 months ago

The existence of each species has its corresponding value and meaning, and each species is an indispensable part of the earth’s biosphere. The rupture of each small cycle will affect the stability of the biosphere and ultimately affect the survival of human beings. Therefore, human beings and other creatures on the earth are also a community of destiny, closely related to each other and share weal and woe. Due to the influence of human activities, more than 200 species have disappeared from the earth. There are a large number of species even unknown to us. This process will gradually accelerate, and it is imperative to protect endangered species. Regarding the view of natural selection and survival of the fittest, I believe that human development has reached the level of influencing and transforming the earth, and the earth is in a whole cycle. Everything is indispensable. Therefore, this theory is more applied to the same species and environmental influences. And the impact of such a big human bug should be excluded from “natural selection”

11
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x