It seems that most of these types of folks would be thrilled to extinct the organisms that cause polio, smallpox, plague, etc. We do our best to develop medicines to do just that.
2006-12-20 07:16:28 · 10 answers · asked by jkc19452004 2 in Environment
Because it seems like a pressing concern that we can see the results of - both good and bad - immediately. Pollution, global warming and the like are more generalized issues, and it is difficult for most people to see any difference in these things from day to day. If a fluffy or exotic species goes extinct, then their absence can be realized in a concrete way; if a species is saved, then the success of the environmental group's work is right there for all to see.
I think it is important to try to save some of the species that humans are directly resonsible for wiping out, if for no other reason than to gain a better understanding of biological diversity, or, in the case of plants, to maybe find something that can cure a disease. Still, I think the world would be better off if the most ardent environmentalists worked on the more general issues, since pollution and the like can cause the extinction of thousands of species and can damage the future hopes of the human race. But that's just my view.
2006-12-20 07:21:54 · answer #1 · answered by waefijfaewfew 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think your premise that we are thrilled to see the end of the polio organism, for example, is incorrect.
Each of us has his specialized interest. If I am an activist trying to save the spotted owl, then I do not have time to care about the white yangtse dolphin that was declared extinct just this week (boo hoo), OR the Polio organism.
However, there are people very committed to keeping the polio, smallpox, and other organisms from becoming extinct. Their motives might or might not be compassionate when it comes to the species, because from what I have heard, the argument for keeping samples of these alive goes like this: we might need it to study other diseases, or it might be a cure for something else. Nevertheless, there are environmentall-conscious people concerning themselves with preservation of almost anything endangered that I can think of, including the organisms you mention above.
2006-12-20 07:23:37 · answer #2 · answered by firefly 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes bigger species are slower to evolve and there would need to be a mutation to make them incredibly fast with great endurance to avoid bullets otherwise their killing at random, hunters (humans) tend to go for the biggest/strongest animal this goes against natural selection were the weakest/sickest/oldest will be killed. There are a lot better examples of species not coping the best is the great dying at the permian triassic boundary, caused by flood basalt eruptions. The biggest thing we are doing now is destroying their environment, if there is not enough food then it's pretty unlikely they'll survive.
2016-03-29 01:41:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Species shall evolve into new ones and the old ones will get extinct, which is fine.
But extinctions without replacements diminish biodiversity, which is very bad.
The rate of extinctions of species is increasing at an alarming pace, in parallel with the disappearance of ecosystems and wild habitats everywhere because of human expansion.
2006-12-20 08:13:41 · answer #4 · answered by PragmaticAlien 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
good news, since Yersinia pestis has a natural resevoir of rodents, we wont be eliminating it any time soon. Or ever.
Virii are frequently considered to not be living organisms, so that gets rid of polio and small pox from your list.
Small pox isn't totally eliminated anyhow, at the very least the CDC and some Russian agency have a few vials of it. Just in case.
2006-12-20 07:33:55 · answer #5 · answered by John V 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question doesn't make sense. Those who want to stop species from going prematurely extinct are trying to help maintain the biodiversity of earth and the balance of it's ecosystems, not set plagues loose on people
2006-12-20 07:20:02 · answer #6 · answered by Amy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they define the threshold for species deserving saving at a level higher than bacteria/viruses.
2006-12-20 07:19:24 · answer #7 · answered by Qwyrx 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
belief that humans are outside the system and therefore must mend any damage they do
2006-12-20 07:20:09 · answer #8 · answered by bubsir 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Viruses serve no purpose except to replicate and kill.
2006-12-20 07:19:56 · answer #9 · answered by Roman Soldier 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
because...if it is cute and cuddly or if it inspires feelings of grandeur...they want to save it.
fuque the six fingered swamp-rat...we need to save the giant river otter because it does cute little human things with its hands!!!!
Hypocrites and scumbags...all of them
2006-12-20 07:19:53 · answer #10 · answered by silverback487 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋