A dream came true: Half grown Siberian tiger in the snow

Jorginho wrote:

erichK wrote:

Jorginho wrote:

Creatures become extinct because they are no longer fit enough to survive. it is irrelevant whether it is us or anything else: 99.9% of all creatures that have ever lived became extinct. No one misses the Shortfaced bear, the cave lion, the mamuth, megaceros etcetc.

We only appear to miss what we have lost and loved. While we lost species for sure recently on a global scale, we have won a lot of diversity on a regional scale. It is a human trait to adhere a lot of value to what is rare. Whether it is gold, a special kind of food or an animal. What is abundant doesn't count and "too" abundant and it is a pest.

In reality some species are at the end of the line and no longer fit to survive whereas others are doing much better because of the changes in their surroundings. Some have found new homes via human dispersal and also are doing very well.

The Siberian tiger supresses wolve numbers significantly. Wherever human predation of tigers diminshes their numbers, wolves start to thrive. Wherever wolves enter, coyotes disappear. So in this case one takes the place of the other. Some things change. Larger ungulates have no problem with a coyote, but a pack of wolves is a serious danger. So they are more weary, less productive and forests start to grow...or prairie is lost...Whatever you like.

Change is a constant in the Universe. We will lose friends, species etc. I am human too an do not like it but I then realise that there is no good or bad reason for it. It is just the way it is. Sooner or later that tiger will become extinct. we probably too.

As it is, the tiger is just not competitive enough. It does not need to become extinct if it would be more clever etc. Foxes, raccons, wolves, bears, pigs, coyotes etc: they do well with humans around.

Wrong and wrongheaded. Even the mechanistic, deterministic oversimplification of Darwinism that you propound could only obtain in a closed, essentially static, system.

No. the view of a static system also known as an ecosystem is static. Since it needs to be in some sort of balance and external forces disrupt it which according to some is fine as long as it isn't for one species doing this...

My view is a dynamic system in which things constantly changem become extinct and new species evolve at different rates. Such is demonstrably the case.

"It is just the way it is." Is a cop-out indeed!

There is no need for a cop out when you accept all moral views as equally valid. which would equate to no moral, since one could argue that in reality none can be valid. AFAIK nature has no moral, it is a human concept. You can take this concept as a reality as a human but would unable to determine which concept is the right one since it is no more a thought which seems reasonable to you, to some or many but it is not a reality nor a universal truth.
We could all agree there must be a God but it would never add a single thing to proving it actually exists. Same sort of thing.

You are being wilfully blind to a record of human effects on the environment that go back to the beginnings of agriculture. William F Ruddiman's PLOWS, PLAGUES, AND PETROLEUM.

Again; not at all. But these are all natural. For sure. Whether these changes are good or bad is again a personal stance. Suppose you do not like whatever that will become extinct: to that person it probably will be seen as "good". Someone who holds the opposite view, will say the opposite. there can be no judge other than a majority being in favour of some of the views.

More importantly, you are ignoring the mountain of evidence that NOW we humans, with our destructive practices,

There willl never be any science that can prove "destruction". Destruction is a view by humans on a certain development. We will agree that humans significantly change states of climate, ecology, biosphere etc. Sure. No climatologist will ever say, in a scientific paper, that the warming is bad, unnatural etc. it is significant and anthropogenic, each individual can determine whether it is good or bad. Arrhenius found out in 1895 that a doubling of Co2 would warm the Earth by up to 4 K. And he would love it, since it would make Sweden a nicer place to live in in his Swedish view...

Have a read of this.

An ecosystem that naturally has individual lives and whole species arising and falling is fine, and the pace is such that adaptations can occur in some instances and not in others. An evolutionary pace. One day, the conditions of existence will eliminate it all, if not earlier then, ultimately, when the sun moves through its own life cycle.

But when one part of that system becomes completely dominant, reproduces rampantly to plague proportions, overwhelms all other life (the 'background' species extinction rate is 1 to 5 species per year, but today it is 1,000 to 10,000 times that rate), greatly accelerates climate changes on a planetary scale, then adaptation becomes impossible and the system is on course to abrupt collapse.

To argue 'that's okay too' is essentially a death wish. Essentially the same as willingly being part of the evil monster of so many morality tales, set on course to destroy the planet.