English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I know some people are going to be conservationists and will give an answer along the lines of 'all animals deserve to live' but what animal do you think is so crap that if it went extinct tommorow, you wouldn't really care at all?

2007-03-22 03:13:47 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics Zoology

16 answers

ok, conservationist answer...

All animals are NEEDED for the environments they live in. Each animal lives within a web of other plants, animals, and habitat that is as interwoven as the most intricate spiders' web. When you take one (or more) species out of the environment, it damages the web. Remove enough and the web disintegrates (the habitat is dead).

Get rid of mosquitos, then the animals who feed on them will die off, then the ones that feed on them, then the plants that depend on those for pollination, then the animals that depend on those plants, etc,etc. It's the domino effect. Knocking one domino down sets off a chain reaction that disturbs the whole ecosystem.

All animals are here for a reason. "getting rid" of one (or more) is like playing russian roulette.

2007-03-22 03:58:44 · answer #1 · answered by taliswoman 4 · 1 0

Yes, there probably are a number of species that we don't need on the planet. But don't be quick to say that a species isn't worth saving. If you kill off the Dung Beetle, then Africa would be burried under poop.
Rodents eat a lot of the scraps, and snakes keep the rodent population under control.
I'd like to see the Puma species reintroduced into Pennsylvania and New Jersey. People complain about the deer population being too large. Bring back a predator that eats the deer, and take care of the problem.

But, back to your question... There must be something... Two toed sloth, I can't see how it provides anything to enrich its environment, except when eaten by some carnivore.

2007-03-22 03:58:47 · answer #2 · answered by Brian H 4 · 1 0

The Human Head Louse.

This is the only animal I know of that could be gotten rid of without ecological consequences, due to its interaction with only one species.

There is the argument that this could be extended to other species of parasite eg fleas and ticks, but some of these are food to other species so the human head louse is the only one I'm certain about.

Possible negative impacts-

Humans, like other species, have evolved to deal with a parasite load. Our immune systems have developed in the presence of microorganisms; gut intesinal, blood, skin... and there is a good possibility that if we suddenly removed one of these, our immune system would start attacking itself or somehow start going wrong. This is less likely to happen with external blood sucking parasites as they is little our body does in response to them, and they make up a relatively small proportion of our parasite load, but it is possible.

Also, there is the possibility that if the human head luse went, something worse would take their place; like with gut bacteria, if you take antibiotics you kill them all off, leaving room for the reaally tough hard to kill ones. That is why you should drink probiotic yoghurts when on antibiotics.

Bloodsucking parasites may also spread other parasites that interact more with our immune system, and they may also spread diseases that keep animal populations in check. For animals with no predators, disease and food shortage is the only way to keep the population under control.

However, as the frequency of head lice is now comparatively low, I think they are unlikely to be a vector of disease or other parasites. If they are, I do not think it is a significant population limiting disease, but the circumstances could be different in other, namely 3rd world, countries. The 'kissing bugs' of Central and South America spread Chagas disease that affects a large proportion of the population, but the disease causing bacteria is specifically adapted to its host, and to my knowlede the human head louse is not hot to any major disease.

Now if we were to consider bacteria and viruses things would get a lot more complicated, but you said animal so I stuck to that.

2007-03-22 04:51:40 · answer #3 · answered by Stardust 4 · 0 0

Mosquitos are the only animal I can think of. All animals have an important function in the food chain, but I think mosquitos are the only animal we could really do without. They spread many nasty diseases that make humans and other animals very ill.

2007-03-22 06:54:26 · answer #4 · answered by spyhopper 3 · 0 0

It is possible already. I am not ''loved'' by anyone (except parents) and still I'm living happily. Moreover, I believe that true love doesn't exist in the real world. It's just lust and the urge to have sex. That's it. Peace.

2016-03-28 23:31:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Flying Roaches! Yukko! Kill-em all!

2007-03-22 03:23:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

idiots like you, who know nothing about the world and what it needs to keep from going to heck. Its called a food web. LOOK IT UP!!!

2007-03-22 04:21:14 · answer #7 · answered by Linzi 4 · 0 0

Pedophiles.

2007-03-22 03:21:26 · answer #8 · answered by superrrmodel 4 · 0 1

Crows. Well, they are rather noisy and the spread bird flu :) (don't mind me, i am talking rubbish)

2007-03-22 03:21:23 · answer #9 · answered by pearly 1 · 0 1

Roaches, snakes, scorpions, mice and rats.

2007-03-22 03:23:19 · answer #10 · answered by barbiebabe 3 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers