How would the lost of polar bears affect the world?

Answer 1

Concerns about lost biodiversity usually center around what we DON'T know, rather than what we do.

For example, we have plenty of polar bears now, and they seem to be doing their polar bear thing. But what happens when there are absolutely no polar bears? I'm not sure anyone can completely say.

Right now, they are a top predator. That means that they may serve to keep other populations down. There aren't too many things that polar bears eat that are generally considered pests, but then maybe that's just because people don't generally hang out near polar bears. If they were gone and we do move in, we may discover that they were handy after all.

And though they are considered fairly dangerous to humans, they are also a tourist attraction quixotically enough. I'm sure most of us have seen advertisements with polar bears on them, and some of us have even paid a fair amount to ride in heavily armoured coaches to see them up close in the wild. With no polar bears, this interest fades and money goes elsewhere.

There are also medicinal concerns. Polar bears occupy a fairly unique niche, and that suggests that they have some fairly unique adaptations to it. It may be that analysis of polar bear biology, biochemistry, and genetics yield some very useful things for humanity as a whole, whether its a new design for polar coats, a drug to treat hypothermia, or even something apparently entirely unrelated. We MAY not find any of those things on further study, but without polar bears to study we CERTAINLY never will!

Answer 2

We really have no way of knowing, but there is an old proverb that says "The first rule of inteligent tinkering is to keep all the pieces." That said, the assumption that there would be a population explosion in seals is simplistic. Although "Ecology" has come to mean all things environmental, there is a science of "Ecology", which is the study of the interaction of species in the environment. Many Ecologists have studied the relationships between prey and predators over the last 100 years. In general, predators do not influence the population of their prey; rather it tends to be the other way around, that an abundance (or lack of it) in prey determins the quantity of predators. Population numbers of any species in nature tend to go through cycles that, through time, form fairly predictable patterns. If you wish to know more about this branch of Ecology, try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_cycle#Relationships_between_Predators_and_Prey

Now, back to your question. No Polar Bears, presumeably because there is no pack ice. No pack ice also means less habitat for seals, thus maybe LESS seals. Less pack ice means more solar radiation into the water, which means more biological activity, which MAYBE means more fish, and thus MORE seals, but because the fish are also dependent on the availability of food, and we will not know the biological capacity of the Arctic Ocean until after it becomes ice free, that is an assumption. Along with global warming, the chemical balance of the world's oceans is changing as a result of increased carbon dioxide, and the oceans of the future may be far less productive than those of today. This fact is a new finding, but you can find information at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acidic_Oceans

So, no Polar Bears, in the worst case, could only be a small part of a very big global calamity, a world we can only speculate about, but one I don't think we want. The British government just published a scientific analysis of the full impacts of global warming. An easily understandable summary (along with losts of information on climate change, the best online resource I know)can be found at :http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6098362.stm

Answer 3

There would probably be an over population of seals.

Answer 4

Eskimos wouldn't have any sh*t hidden under snow to step in.