Worthless Species?

[Sean Nash]

Thanks to biotechnology, we are learning how to create new forms of life tailored to specific purposes. If it is acceptable to create desirable new species, is it all right to destroy undesirable or useless species? After all, we are spending immense amounts of money to destroy or control insects that kill crops and spread disease. If you had the power to remove certain species... would you? Where would you draw the line?

Our discussion list:
-the AIDS virus
-the TB bacterium
-mosquitoes
-cockroaches
-poisonous snakes
-sharks
-weeds

Species of plants and animals have come and gone since life began on earth. The dinosaurs are an example. Why should we be concerned about extinctions occurring today?

[Shandis Cruz]

When we were first presented with this list and were told to draw a line showing were we would "end" certain species, I was pretty convinced that eliminating all of them would be a great idea! Wrong. I contemplated in my head whether or not this was a trick question, trying to reason with myself in every possible way to determine each of these "crummy" topics purpose. In the end I decided to choose to eliminate all of them.

From that point on I kept convincing myself that each of these topics did more harm then good, I guess it was "the human in me" that was kicking in, emotion wise, I kept finding myself thinking about the families that had a loved one living with Aids or TB and the pain that they must be experiencing. I thought to myself, what good is really coming of this? It wasn't until population control was brought up that I really began to understand the "need" for these. Now, when I say need I'm not referring to either of these topics as a good thing, but it makes sense to me in the grand scheme of things.

In my opinion, and I'm sure some will agree with me, that the world is very densely populated already, and by adding all of those who would still be living if not for the diseases, the amount would be astonishing. Not to mention the fact that a majority of the people infected live in impoverished countries, which are usually to be found densely populated anyway. With a large amount of people living in a small area it is much easier for disease and other ailments to be passed around.

All in all I learned that it is pretty much imperative to have diseases such as these so that the world doesn't continue growing even more than it already is.

As far as the bugs and weeds were concerned, I thought, the less "disgusting" things the better. It didn't take long for me to learn that once again I was very much wrong. I never really put the trophic pyramid into play until our discussion. I should have thought of that before; if we start eliminating species of plants and insects we are disrupting the whole pyramid. By eliminating misquotes for instance, we would be disrupting the numbers of everything that consumes them, because when we would be taking food supply away from certain animals. On that note when I learned that the mass of misquotes outweighs the mass of humans! I found that, that was absolutely insane! I never would have guess that tiny little insects weigh more than all humans combined, that's crazy!

I think that both of these points correlate to the ideas of extinction because of we continue to use harsh chemicals and other products to try and kill insects such as bug spray, we are only contributing to the death of millions of insects. In the grand scheme of things by doing this we are putting all animal species in jeopardy because by simply eliminating one species you are disrupting at least one animal on each level of the trophic pyramid.

[Sean Nash]

Wow. A full turn-around? That's pretty extreme, eh?
A few points...

Speaking of the enormous mass of mosquitoes as well as all other insects, this post
in a really nice little blog does a nice job of cutting to the essence of that idea. In fact, a quote I'm rather fond of is:

"The United States “is home to some 400 pounds of insect biomass per acre, compared with our 14 pounds of flesh and bone.”

As far as "population control" issue goes... I'm wondering if you aren't trying to be really... really "objective" in the extreme. (?) You are able to do this really well. This is what gives you a brain wired for science for sure. However, this thought exercise is one set of issues where the lines between science and humanity blur quite heavily. Don't forget that you are a member of one species on this planet. It is rather normal to be anthropocentric to some degree. I wouldn't try to remove that totally from your mind while contemplating these things. It is an awesome thing to be able to temporarily pull your biases away to focus on a scientific problem in an objective way. However, this issue goes well beyond that rather narrow band of thought... in my opinion.

And on the population problem, consider this... what if it wasn't so much that the raw population numbers were so bad... but it was more a problem of the uneven distribution of wealth and resources? Now, as you know me, I'm not saying this is "the truth." But toss that in while you're continuing to think about these issues. I have heard quite a bit of informal chatter about this one outside of class. I thank you and your classmates for continuing to really dig in and explore these issues. ;)

[Shandis Cruz]

I do often tend to pull myself away from basing a lot of my decisions on emotion, so as far as being objective goes I think that might just be a part of my thought process. Although, I found myself opening my eyes to the other side of the argument that was brought forth in regards to how we would feel if someone that we loved was infected with these said diseases. Based on that and some other pondering that I did I can completely understand why some choose to wipe out Aids and TB.

Before furthering that discussion I will admit that I was indeed narrow minded in my reasoning. What I couldn't get out of my head was, if the population were to increase, especially in third- world countries, where these diseases can commonly be found, wouldn't that just cause even worse conditions? I say that because I know that food and shelter are often times very scarce already, wouldn't an extra 100,000 people only contribute to the harsh conditions that these countries are facing? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not at all saying, yeah wiping out some 2 million people a year from these diseases is a much better idea, I'm just seeing a "lose- lose" situations from both ends of the spectrum. (As awful as it may sound, I can't help but think of Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest for some reason. Hmmmm...)

Now as you mentioned about distribution of wealth and resources, I think that if those that have a great amount of wealth would contribute a fraction of the earnings to better the medical systems and provide aid in densely populated areas then maybe they wouldn't be experience such a high disease rate, which would be a positive outcome for every aspect off illness in those countries. Although I try to be very optimistic in regards to this, I can't help but shake the logic from my mind, because honestly its probably a one in a million shot that many that can contribute actually would. It sounds horrible but I think that it all deals with the selfishness of our country and where people choose to spend their earnings.

*As for discussing topic outside of class.....it usually becomes the basis of our 5th hour conversations! :)

[Taylor Woodruff]

When we were first asked about which "useless" species we'd like to destroy if we could, I decided that I'd like to destroy the AIDS virus and the TB bacterium, because in my mind this only brings bad things, we don't get anything good out of it. There isn't a single life form (at least to my knowledge) that needs either of these things to live off of. So, the world wouldn't be any different except for the fact that the victims of this virus and bacterium wouldn't have to die a painful, sad death. On the other side of the line I decided that mosquitoes, cockroaches, poisonous snakes, sharks, and weeds were all a necessity because they are all apart of the food chain, so if one died out many other things would dies out too.

But, as our class began to discuss whether or not we'd wipe out some, none, or even all of these species, I started to change my mind a bit. When Blayr said something about if people didn't get AIDS or TB then the world would be over-populated, even though it doesn't sound very good, she has a point. LIke I always say, everything happens for a reason, so I believe that there is a purpose this happening. For instance, lets say that nobody got AIDS or TB then millions of people would still be living today. This would cause us to have a need for more food supply and room for living, which would make us kill more animals and wooded areas (which may cause extinctions) .

I still agree with keeping the rest of the species, because like I said before it would have major effect on the food chain even if you just wiped out one of these species. Even though they may seem gross and icky, whether we like it or not it would be pretty dang hard living without these nasty things.

So, really I only moved my line away from two things, which doesn't seem like much but in reality wiping out just two species has a major effect in the world we live in.

Even though plants and animals, like the dinosaurs have came and gone since life on earth began, we should be pretty concerned about some extinctions occuring today. We never know what animals will start to die out in the near future, so it's hard for us to prepare to loose things we need. If one species starts to become extinct, it will cause a domino effect, causing multiple species to become extinct. So, we need to watch out and be careful, because you never know when it will be our time to be extinct!

[Erin Nash]

Okay Taylor...a couple of quick things for you to consider...

How many people actually die from AIDS per year?
How about TB?

Next thing to consider...these deaths...how do they relate to the mortality rate as a whole? Are they a leading cause of death in the US? In Europe? In South America? In Africa? Globally?

What do you think?

[Hunter Ewart]

Well i don't think it is acceptable to destroy species. Um the first time you asked us to draw a line to remove species. I drew it between poisonous snakes and sharks because sharks don't really bother me i can avoid them by staying out of the ocean. On the other hand snakes are a little harder to avoid because there everywhere. Snakes aren't exactly my favorite kind of animal in the first place so getting ride of them would make me allot happier.
But now that i have actually thought bout what would actually happen if something like that was to happen then our world as we know it would be a mess. The trophic pyramid would be a scrambled up mess. There would be more predicators then producers. then ultimately there would end up being no producers because we had done ate them all. Because if you don't have anything producing your food then your not going to have any food.

[Sean Nash]

If diseases and disasters are important due to their effects on population control... then by that rationale, this accomplishment is potentially a... bad thing?

Anyone care to bite on this one?

[Blayr Bolton]

Oh my. I didn't realize the "this accomplishment" was a link until a few minutes ago. Nice work on finding this though, because it's nearly perfect for what I've been reading in other people's posts. I saw several times that a lot of the reasons people are choosing to keep diseases around are because of population control. This man "who developed a drought- and weed-resistant form of sorghum, one of the world's principals grains," would be considered a hazard to the world because he's saving lives. I mean after all, aren't those lives just adding to our over population anyhow? NO! This seems to be quite the misconception Mr. Nash and this man is a perfect example of why. "Sorghum feeds 500 million to 700 million people worldwide." From what I've read and interpreted, based on the views of several students, these 500 million to 700 million people worldwide should not be fed? Am I right? Hm, it sort of changes the way some people may look at things, huh?

[Marcy Withrow]

In my eyes everything has an importance, nothing is "useless." I find this topic interesting! It seems like all the things listed should be eliminated from this planet, but in all reality, should anything be eliminated? It seems kind of harsh to say that something should be destroyed because of how it lives. Virus live in our bodies and mosquitoes suck our blood, but doesn’t it seem selfish to get rid of those organisms just because they effect us negatively. I think so. When we did this activity I didn't mark anything because I knew somehow they had a positive effect on something, and I still believe i'm right.

Just because these organisms listed don’t benefit us, doesn’t mean they don’t benefit other things. Like the cockroaches! We talked in class about how they keep down bat guano in caves. Without them there would be tons of bat guano, do you think bats would like to fly right into their own waste? I know I wouldn’t. What about weeds? Does it seem like they harm anything? Okay, they aren’t the prettiest plant, but that doesn’t mean they should be wiped off the surface of the planet.

When I looked up “extinction” I mostly found articles about a “Mass Extinction.” It estimates that about 250 million years ago Earth lost around 90% of it’s species. That’s a lot! Extinction is always increasing for species and some day we may even find a decrease in humans.

So, why get rid of anything? If God made them shouldn’t they be here, doesn’t everything have a purpose or play a role in someway? I don’t think we should take for grant it all the species we have now, whether they benefit humans or not. We should enjoy every specie here on Earth and know they must be doing something good.

Here is a link to a website that talks about the Mass Extinction….

[Sean Nash]

Remember... a rose growing in a farmer's wheat field... is a weed.

[Shelby Hawkins]

Aww...It looks like it's crying!!

[Terra Younger]

The class started out with our own definition of "argument." Mine happened to be "Not seeing eye-to-eye with another/ proving a point based from previous knowledge or views one has... To prove right or wrong, or maybe even come to a compromise."

When we were told to draw a line where we'd eliminate the "worthless species"... I drew nothing... At first I thought we could do without AIDS and TB but then my heartless-self chimed in. I don't think that any of the "worthless species" should be eliminated. We've been programmed to think a certain way. Bugs are disgusting, diseases are bad, weeds make your lawn ugly, sharks bite, blah, blah, blah... They're here for a reason, why get rid of them?...

The planet has 6,706,993,152 humans living on it as I type... That's an astounding number! I know this sounds extremely heartless and sick but the first two diseases eliminate a large amount of people each year and that's, well, needed. The world is over populated as it is... Survival of the fittest?

Mosquitoes. Hmm, not my favorite insect, but I still wouldn't get rid of them... Sure, they leave itchy red bumps after sucking your blood and transfer diseases such as, West Nile and Malaria. Yet again, that has to do with the over population of our planet... Eh, touchy subject, but true.

Ahh cockroaches. Kind of nasty. But that's they're job! They get rid of the nasty stuff for us. For example, in class I think it was JT that mentioned that cockroaches help get rid of bat guano in caves. Gross, but helpful.

Sharks are cool! Being on a Marine Biology trip and getting to see two up close was amazing. I even swam with one (reef shark). Sharks are an essential part of the aquatic food chain and are graceful, beautiful creatures. Most of the time the accidents are mistaken identity. "Sometimes it's a mistake, they actually think they're biting a fish or a seal. That won't improve your mood if you're the person getting bitten but it might explain why most shark attacks are non-fatal. They take a bite, don't like it and swim off."

Weeds... I don't see a problem here... Sure they're not as attractive as your “fake” blue grass lawn... Last time I checked we don't get rid of things just 'cause they're ugly.

For the most part I think the arguments that revolved around keeping all the "worthless species" had to do with the food web, chain and trophic levels. Get rid of one theing completely and that messes with everything. So, argumentation?... Love it! It's seriously one of the best ways to learn. To hear other peoples thoughts on a subject and express your own to come to a conclusion of what's "right," it's interesting.