It is always sad news to hear that a species has ended up on the endangered animals list, and it's even worse when an animal is about to be extinct. This has happened to the Christmas Island pipstrelle bat in Australia. There were only 20 of these bats sighted in February, and scientists are currently unsure if the animals are extinct or not.
To make efforts to ensure that extinction will not happen in the future, a professor at the University of New South Wales has suggested raising endangered species as pets. The idea is to raise animals and breed them until there are a sound amount of them to release them into the wild again. It's important to note, however, that not all species are fit to be raised domestically (for example, the koala).
I'm not sure how to feel about this proposal. Although this idea has reason, in the long run most animals need to live in a specific, fragile ecosystem that suits their needs, and science labs do not fulfill these requirements. What do you think?
-Molly Cheng
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Okay, well not to sound completely morbid or anything, but it's the survival of the fittest out there. Don't get me wrong, I love animals, but as we learned from Darwin and "natural selection", this is a part of life.
Like you said, "in the long run most animals need to live in a specific, fragile ecosystem that suits their needs", so if they can't survive in their current wild one, what means they will be able to years after the population is huge after being bread for pets. (Lets face it, with global warming, pollution, and everything, the wild enviornment isn't exactly improving.)
-Jessica Barney
I too hate hearing about animals being at risk of being extinct. I think that these animals should be under the care and supervision of pure professionals. There are people who are trained to take care of wild animals, and have environments that are suitable for certain animals. Obviously, poaching should be forbidden, along with many other things, to prevent further factors that may exacerbate the situation.
While it makes sense that those fragile ecosystems are important to the survival of these endangered species, I agree with the idea of having endangered species as pets. While this idea may seem far fetched, it isn't that much more extreme than the environments that many endangered species live under in zoos. Zoos are extremely artificial versions of an animals surrounding, but they are affective. Yes, many of the pandas raised in the zoo would have a hard time in the real world, but assuming that genetic mutation isn't drastically going to kick in in a few generations of a specific species, allowing an endangered species to breed under unnatural circumstances may be the key to getting the species back to a normal level. In 50 years, or however long it may take, the endangered species can then be integrated back in to their natural environments. Besides, the love of pet owners can give an endangered animal safety. God forbid I would ever let my cats get hurt. They are too cute and fat for that. Just saying.
I agree with molly when she stated, "Although this idea has reason, in the long run most animals need to live in a specific, fragile ecosystem that suits their needs, and science labs do not fulfill these requirements." I think it is important for endangered species to be protected while their population numbers rise, but what would becoming house broken do to their lifestyles. Plus another question we should consider is how will they return to their original habitat? They will, at that point in time have no one to raise them and adjust them to the real habitat. It is important to protect them, but they need to stay wild, that is where they are meant to be.
Although I really like the idea of having endangered species as pets, Molly's right about animals needing a specific habitat. If people do start taking care of them, their adaption to the wild would deteriorate. It could become a cycle of raising, releasing, then having to raise them repeatedly if they keep becoming endangered. Even though panda bears are probably not fit to be raised domestically, it'd be a whole load of fun to take care of one!
I am going to interpret "raising endangered species as pets" as regular families taking them in as if the species were the house cat.
Distributing the endangered species to random families is easy. I am sure there are many pet lovers who would not mind keeping an endangered species.
Here are a couple benefits of distributing them to regular homes:
-If the species is not incredibly delicate, families will successfully be able to keep them alive and even if the species goes extinct in the wild, they will still be around in captivity. Several examples can be found in the genus Haplochromis.
-Like Riley said, those who keep the animal will grow to love them over time (aside from those twisted few who abuse their pets). This means that they will protect them and give them the best environment that they can. This gives a higher chance that the animal will survive until they are sexually mature.
Breeding them would be a more difficult task, but it is not impossible. I am not sure when it comes to land dwelling animals, but there are many species of endangered or extinct in wild fish that have been kept in homes and have been bred. The redtail shark is an example of this.
However, getting the fish back to their natural environment will prove difficult, especially if there are small numbers of the animal species spread out across a large area like a country. The redtail shark, although it is reported to be rather easy to breed and is readily available in any fish store you go to, they are still not being restocked in the wild. As Riley said, the owners will love their pet and do anything they can to protect them, care for them; etc, but this love can also backfire. Would every pet owner who has kept their pet for several years actually want to let go of the pet? I can say from personal experience that I have a hard time getting rid of my fish even though they are getting too large for my tank.
So in short I think zoos are a great place to keep endangered species to breed and restock them in the wild, but keeping them in domestic households... not a very good idea.
-Yuzo Yanagitsuru
This whole pet situation is interesting. I don't know what raising endangered pets domestically will do because it has never been done. But I assume that if this were to happen, they would become like household dogs and cats. They would be loved and protected which is what these species need. Although I agree with Molly's point about species needing specific requirements to survive, if we allow them to stay in their natural habitats, many species will become extinct. Today, there are about 5,000 endangered animals and at least one species becomes extinct each year. There are probably many more species which become extinct without anyone knowing.
Although Jessica has a point about Darwin's natural selection, I don't think we should let species die out and become extinct.
Most of the time it isn't their fault, it's humans. We expand our industrial borders into their ecosystems, causing their habitats to become much smaller, making it harder for them to survive. This is just one example.
I agree with Riley and Yuzo in that zoos are probably our best solution. They provide an artificial, yet similar surrounding to what it is like in the wild. This can help better prepare endangered species get accustomed to their own natural environment when they are released.
A couple of things:
First, "Survival of the Fittest" as the driving idea behind evolution is outdated. While the fittest tend to survive, it is really "survival of the fittest genes", not the fittest animal. A gene does not exist to give its host the greatest chance of survival, but to give itself the highest chance of survival. This is why, in the natural world, we see examples of reciprocal altruism, for example vampire bats often share blood. instead of letting a weaker bat die, a stronger bat will give it some blood, so that if the stronger bat at one point doesn't get enough blood, the weaker bat will donate some of it's blood to repay its debt. One could make a similar "selfish gene" observation about bees. When a bee stings a threatening animal (for example, a human), it dies, but at the same time it releases a chemical that alerts other bees to the presence of a danger, allowing the bees to defend the hive with greater effectiveness. "Survival of the Fittest" cannot lead to the development of a kamikaze fighter defense. "Selfish Gene" theory, can, because Worker Bees don't reproduce, but the queen does. The worker bee sacrifices itself, which gives the queen a better chance of survival.
Second, the idea of using "natural selection" as a moral justification for an action is abhorrent. Saying we shouldn't "because of natural selection" leads to a slippery slope moral system based on Natural Law. By the same reasoning, we should not help the poor and the mentally or physically handicapped, because they are weaker than us. Few would say we ought to condemn these people to death because of a condition they cannot help. We ought to help these animals, especially in cases where humankind is responsible for the destruction of their ecosystems. So saying "lets face it, with global warming, pollution, and everything, the wild environment isn't exactly improving" is not a justification for not helping, but a reason to be helping.
Thirdly, if I can have an endangered species as a pet, I think I'd like the Kakapo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbQgu0ilg8U
Wow this is really saddening to hear. While raising endangered species can reduce the number of endangered species, some animals have specific requirements in their habitat. For example, it would be impossible to has a humpback whale as a pet. Humpback whales are humongous and consume large amounts of seafood that would only be available in t he ocean. Also, if we take care of endangered species they will not be able to protect themselves if they are released into the wild.
A wise one once taught me that I should be careful of what I write on this blog because there is a chance someone will attack it.
I can't say that I'm in favor of when other commenters quote something you write,take it out of context to some degree, and slam you for it.
1. The comment that the "Survival of the Fittest" concept is based upon the genes surviving rather than the "animal" isn't really clear. How can the genes that make a certain animal population "survive" if the "animal" is extinct?
The animals of a population need to be able to survive in order for those genes to get passed on.
2. Using the vampire bat as a counterarguement for survival of the fittest is, in this case a tad irrelevant due to the fact that the vampire bat population is not even close to being a threatened species. And bees in general, have a very uncommon way of reproduction in terms of the entire animal kingdom so I'm finding it hard to take that point seriously.
3. I agree that "using 'natural selection' as a moral justicfication for an action is abhorrent". What I suggested was natural selection as justification for a non-action. I am not opting for the action of going out and deliberitely killing an entire species, I was opting for no human intervention, which is very very different.
4. I think it is abhorrent that my comment about natural selection gets put in the category of people who want to let the poor, mentally and physically handicapped die because they are weaker. That is totally out of context.
-Jessica Barney
1. The Selfish Gene theory is based upon the idea that Genes exist to propagate themselves, not to ensure the prolonged existence of the owner. This is why animals will defend their young; the parent cares less about its own survival than the survival of the gene that is the cause of this type of behavior. A gene that causes this type of behavior, rather than leaving the young to die, is more likely to continue existing than the allowing the children to die gene.
2. The vampire bat example is not irrelevant, because it gives an example of a genetic trait that has continued to exist, despite being carried by "weaker bats". In this case, the gene for generosity (esp. towards bats that had previously shown generosity) is more likely to survive. The concept of reciprocal altruism is contrary to the idea of "survival of the fittest" because it allows for the survival of the weak that carry genes for reciprocal altruism.
To be fair, bees had to reproduce, and the idea of "kamikaze" bees is very contrary to the idea of "survival of the fittest" but lends itself to the Selfish Gene theory instead. Why does the fact that bees have a different way of reproducing make the point any less valid? They had to evolve as well, and this kind of end result does not happen via "survival of the fittest", in fact, I find it hard to believe that any hive like creature could evolve along these lines.
3. Well, why shouldn't we take action if we have the resources to do so? Why not save a wonderful species such as the Kakapo (my favorite bird of all time). Certainly there is no reason not to do so, especially considering that we are responsible for so many extinctions.
4. I did not intend to offend you with my comment regarding the poor and homeless, but I did want to make an important point about justifying anything from a natural law perspective. Unfortunately, the opinion that we shouldn't help animals in need is consistent with the idea that we should not help the homeless or handicapped. In both cases, an evolutionary(survival of the fittest) moral system will preach non action. I'm afraid I don't see how my comment is out of context; we are more often responsible for the destruction of an animal's natural habitat than we are for the birth of handicapped persons. Do we not have a responsibility to these animals to help them? Especially considering that we have the resources?
Once again, I didn't/don't mean to offend. These are simply my opinions. I think it'd be nice to save these animals from extinction, if only so we can still enjoy them. But this is because certain species of animals have gone extinct that I would have loved to have seen. For example, there is a lemur the size of a bear that went extinct, and a flightless bird large enough to ride that also went extinct. Imagine if they still existed (and if some were domesticated)! Forget Disney land, I'd want to go to go to the Zoo.
Okay well there isn’t a whole lot of research done proving the connection between certain behaviors to genes, so I’m not too sure how sound an argument that can make. But I do understand that there are certain behaviors resulting in an animal’s death that are not a direct result of it being “too weak”.
What I meant when I said that the bee example wasn’t a very strong argument was that what the concept was, was “survival of the fittest” and the bee example and their “kamikaze” behavior is along the same lines of behavior that makes them kill themselves, but doesn’t threaten the bee population the same way other species become threatened by the inability to adapt to changes in their resources/environments.
I would like to set the record straight. As someone who still can play hours on end of Zoo Tycoon (Endangered Species Edition), I do care about animals and I am not in favor of letting more species go extinct.My initial comment about natural selection was not a very good example that, and I need not mean to come across so gung ho.
As for the actual blog post, I do not think that it is a good idea to turn wild animals into pets. Taking a creature out of their natural environment and making it try to live an entirely different way can be disastrous. (Just like in Brave New World how John the Savage was taken from his reservation and brought to the “new world” only to end up killing himself. And let’s not forget about Tarzan and King Kong. You can take the boy out of the jungle, but you can’t take the jungle out of the boy). I think the best bet are wildlife preserves where these habitats are protected and the populations won’t be threatened. Then again, global warming is threatening species like the polar bears whose very fragile ecosystem is threatened so there might not be any other place for them except zoos if this global warming doesn’t stop.
On the other hand, to some degree the energy and resources that it would take to try to help endangered species are a trade off to other things that society could be doing. Is saving an endangered species more important than say the opportunity cost of using that time and energy to fight diseases that hurt humans- or even the opportunity cost of doing things to help the POOR AND HANDICAPPED. There are always trade-offs.
Post a Comment