Why would it be so bad? People will still try to save species regardless. The
fact that there is a seed storage vault in Norway hasn’t stopped people
preserving plants in situ.
There are also species that will inevitably become extinct regardless of how
hard people try to preserve them because other people will keep doing things
that will wipe them out (as is the case for rhinos and tigers).
It might be that humans might not be so greedy in a couple of hundred years
time, and as a species humans might become responsible ecological managers.
There are also island species that will be wiped out by a rapid catastrophe
(e.g. it would be impossible to guarantee the survival of the Norfolk Island
endemics given their small natural range) or a long term change (e.g. the loss
of the keystone tree species in Hawaii).
Fourth, there are species that play important ecological roles. It would be
important to be able bring them back.
The bottom line, is that there will be an ongoing need for ecological
engineering given that humanity is continuing to expand its ecological
footprint and will do so for at least another fifty years.
On 7 May 2016, at 9:04 am, David Adams <> wrote:
> It would be the worst thing to happen to wildlife biology since...ever.
> It's already hard enough to convince people and governments to preserve
> animals as it is. When they figure you can stuff them in a bottle and later
> down the line reconstitute them, good luck. There would be no urgency to
> save things in the wild that can be "saved" on a shelf for that magical day
> when there is room for them again.
> <HR>
> <BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
> <BR>
> <BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
> <BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
> </HR>
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
|
