主播大秀

Destroying the planet so species die out is not THEIR evolutionary shortcoming is it?

A virus will multiply and take resources till it kills its host.So is Man a virus destined to kill the planet?

Dear Newsnight

presumably evolution involves an increase in mans intelligence which would be commensurate with respecting other species and not destroying the planet. Put a monkey in a house and it would trash it, bit like some of us perhaps,

God gave us all this and we should treat the beautiful World we live in with respect

Bob

The truth? Panda's are cuter than dolphins. It takes resources to keep rare species going - and resources need to come from people.

It's all about capturing the imagination of the public with a story.

A dolphin from remote china never stood a chance.

Perhaps if Paris Hilton had expressed an opinion on the matter things would be different. But she didn't.

I for one I'm sad about that - but I'll get over it - as we all will as the news agenda moves on.

Mankind should be in a position to assist the survival of all species without special favour. It's our own selfishness and greed that prevents this from happening.

Anyway, I always thought that evolution was a theory on how life developed and not the definitive solution that we are told it is.

Maybe we don't understand evolution as well as we should do. Could it e possible that it's not just "weaker" species that die out? Could mankind's actions prove to be stronger than evolution's ability allow species to adapt. Remember the Dodo and Great Auk died out because of mankind's actions and not through evolution.

human species on this planet are the equivalent of fleas on a dogs back. We are an irritant and there too many of us. This is exacerbated when we set ourselves up above the rest of nature instead of alongside. By elevating our species it causes us to disregard others and to loose sight of the fact that we should live in harmony with them and consider their well being as well as our own.

Neglecting the rest of the planet will cause our downfall.

It's hardly surprising that the Giant Panda is well tended to and other less attractive species are allowed to die out.

Humans are incurably shallow. Our entire existence is based around a desperate urge to look good and we idolize those that look the best.

Ugly animals have no chance, as do ugly humans.

Only saving cute/attractive looking animals is important.

If they are ugly then no one cares.

It's the height of Mankind's arrogance to see himself as "above" nature, and therefore have a right to destroy it for our own immediate and selfish gains.
Man is OF nature, not APART from it.
If hunters understood they're place IN nature, they would have absolutely no desire to hunt.

FOOLS are those who see otherwise.

I've lived in the Freshwater dolpins' hometown--Wuhan City, along the Yangtze River for four year. The freshwater dolpins look really lovely. Although everyone there is trying to provide them with pristine conditions of living or even mating,it seems that it just doesn't work.

I feel so bad if species I use to be familiar with die out silently.

The panda like the horse was probably destined to become extinct not from human activity but because it couldn't compete in the wild against other more successful non human species, in other words survival of the fitest.

The Dolphin is a bit diffrent as is would have been quite successful in its nitch if it where not for human kind. The talking point seems to imply that evolution will sort us out in the end, if we keep killing everything around us it probably will.

I do begin to wonder about the focus on Chinas environmental record in the news, it does seem that we in the West are becoming a bit like environmental sobs, whilst still not getting our act together.

Evolution? No but it is certainly NGO interference that upsets the balance of nature. You only have to see how UK charities such as the RSPB medddle with such 'evolution'. They have embarked upon a culling programme in the UK of The Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), just becuase it is mating with The White headed duck (Oxyura leucocephala).
Whatever happend to the time when those who managaed the coutnryside were left just to get on with the job. Crikey, next we will be seeing eco-tourism and entire TV programmes dedicated in watching foxes eating out of dustbins....oh sorry, that's already happening.

I find it strange that a program that trys to deal in facts pandering to the unproven theory of evolution.

Given China's trade on tiger parts, have newsnight researchers contacted every restauranteur to make sure there is not one 'fresh in the tank' somewhere?

It's the ole 'fate v. free will ' debate, isn't it ?

Is the development of technology evolutionary or has mankind the ability to step aside from his evolutionary journey, and for better or worse , augment , change and arrest it ??

I tend to favour the former assertion myself , but whether destiny or accident , mankind's future looks pretty grim considering that the 'best' of us ,who lead us , are simply the most effective predators and psychopaths !

Kind of an irony??

Evolution is where the life form adapts to changing needs and environment. We however are doing the opposite.

Also, it's simple to see which creatures we like to save and which we care less about. If it's cute, it's safe. If it's big and dramatic, it's safe. Unless of course it's expensive to save, and or there is unwillingness to change our actions, in which case it's screwed.

Fish. Gorillas. Tigers. Amphibians in general. Trees. Birds. Oh hec, you know the list of creatures we humans just don't give a monkey about. It's endless. Everyone cares until they're asked to help, then suddenly they don't care as much as they thought. I like cod for instance. Do I stop buying it? Nope.

We need to be treated like children, and have our hands smacked when we do somehting we shouldn't. You're polluting - SMACK. You're killing this animal and the ecosystem it supports - SMACK. You're killing us all, in the name of money and short term gains - SMACK.

There is no one organisation with the power to stop individuals, industry, or goverments from doing harm.

It isn't true that only "cute" animals get or deeserve protection. The Florida alligator was given "protected" status when its numbers were low, and it is decidedly not "cute." It has recovered well enough to become something of a nuisance. (g)

Humanity is a disproportionate part of the circumstances changing the Earth, and we ought to conduct ourselves accordingly. Good manners are a lot more important in a Mastiff than in a Chihuahua, aren't they? "Good manners" imply a consideration for the neighbors, be they other humans or the creatures that share the planet with us.

Evolution has led to us being the first species that can observe, predict and understand the impact we have on the wider world in which we live. It is therefore at least possible that we will be the first species ever to predict how we will cause our own demise (or at least decimation) and still do nothing about it.

I'm much more optimistic than that, I think we will ultimately solve many of these problems. Its more of a question of how many hits we will take before we get serious about it -how many disasters and deaths it will take? The more people use evolution as an excuse to do nothing, the higher that number will be.

Well, from one point of view humans are just part of the evolutionary process of natural selection. So if we manage to make the planet uninhabitable for large numbers of species - including ourselves - we're doing no worse than so many of our extinct predecessors probably did.

On the other hand, we're the first species that has the ability to reflect consciously on our place in the natural world and to anticipate the consequences of our actions. We also have intellectual, moral and aesthetic senses, albeit narrowly instrumental and self-serving. We can choose whether it is better to live in a world of rich biological diversity or whether we prefer to exist in future, as some of the inhabitants of the third world already have to, by scavenging in the ruins of an exhausted global consumer economy.

People love dolphins and rush to see them when they ride the bow wave of a boat. Dolphins have been important in different cultures through the ages.

There was a plan to save the Yangtze River dolphin in 2006 by moving the dolphins out of danger to a nearby ox bow lake. It seems it was too little too late. The Chinese and the rest of the world have a responsibility for the ecology of China for the planet now and in the future.

This animal was at the top of the food chain, highly intelligent and adaptable, yet starved of food, polluted, netted and killed it had to surmount impossible odds to survive. It was not a question of evolution but of wholesale destruction of a species by man鈥檚 activities. Future generations will look back with horror that we let this happen.

Yes we humans are part of evolution. Only someone who signed up to an idiotic religious-type view of innate human superiority would think otherwise. We are animals just like dolphins and we interact in the same natural environment that all living creatures do. The difference between us and them is that we have self-realisation and we can see the effects that our actions have on the world. In particular we can see that we are destroying eco-systems and species at a rate that is far more rapid than if we were not around. We also have the ability to put things right though if really want to or at the very least stop the rot. If we want to have any sense of self worth as a civilisation in decades and centuries to come then we should act now to save as many species as possible, with a bias towards those we deem "important" based on their uniqueness, their relationships with other species and their aesthetic value to us as lovers of nature. Mass extinctions have occurred before and they will happen again I'm sure. But standing in the way of saving important species just because it is "going against nature" is pure folly. The moment we gained self realisation and the ability to alter the macro environment we ceased to be passive players in the game. If we continue be believe we are passive then future generations will be sat in a barren wasteland with only the company of cockroaches and deformed plan life but happy in the knowledge that they had "let evolution take its course".

Instructions for newsnight fireworks

Light blue touchpaper, retire 10,000 yards....

It is natural for species to come and go. It is evolution. It has always been that way and I guess it always will be. There is nothing spacial about the flora and fauna of today, or of even the last few million years. One day we humans will disappear (I feel sure of that). Should we care whether that happens in 200 years or 2,000....0 years? Some people will go into the end game and not come out. If it is unpleasant, so be it. It is going to happen. Why waste time worrying about the inevitable end(which I doubt any of us will live to see)? If the world as we know it ends in 200 years the imaginary people who might be born after that never will be. So no need to worry about something that will not happen. "Friends of the Earth", the "Save the Planet" Brigade? A bunch of Bozos. Let us worry about PEOPLE. (all of whom are alive now, or at least have been conceived. Nothing else is a person.).

A majority of the world's population live in cities, for which nature is at best entertainment and at worst a nuisance. People consume nature, literally by eating it, and through destroying habitats. Our governments permit factories to exploit and pollute with scant environmental regard other than when/where people object. Evolution operates too slowly to permit nature to adapt to what we are doing to our planet. I am not against people, cities or economic development. I am not in favour of factory-farming, and if this means that more people become vegan, then there is both a greater chance that global warming can be slowed, and greater opportunity for biodiversity.

"But is human activity just part of evolution? Shouldn't evolution be allowed to run its course?" In other words should humans be allowed to do what they please, regardless of the consequences to other species? We're in the enviable position of choosing to a large extent. We know that we depend on many (all?) other species for our own survival. Secondly our lives are richer for the diversity of life on the planet. To take a simplistic example it would be a dismal (lifeless?) place to live if there was only one type of bird or fish to look at, listen to, or eat. I'd say we should treat all other species as preciously as we should treat our own. Once they're gone, they're never coming back.

Beavers also build dams which affect water courses and possibly the survival of other species - just an idle thought..

Evolution is organisms adapting to the nature. Humans, on the other hand is changing the nature to suit its needs.
Whatever humans did after the Homo Sapiens became intelligent is not just evolution. Mass extinctions have happened before but it seems that behind most of the extinctions happening in the present there is some human interference.

I believe that humans attempt to micromanage everything is a mistake. I'm skeptical of all things offered that are supposedly for our own good. The claims made by those who would deny us our enjoyments because in their minds our enjoyments are dangerous have created a problem of population that will put the human race on the endangered species list.

Outstanding commentary and so true. Thanks.

Human activity is just a part of Evolution no matter how objective we try and become in our intellectual strivings.

The ecosystem within which we are interdependently poised amongst a web of many, many other species is a complicated mechanism. The more species in the ecosystem, the more stable it is and capable of handling further species loss.

If we don't endeavour to understand the ecosystem - which species are most critical for our survival, then we will exterminate ourselves through ignorance, perhaps as the last species standing via cannibalism.

It is natural for species to come and go. It is evolution. It has always been that way and I guess it always will be. There is nothing spacial about the flora and fauna of today, or of even the last few million years. One day we humans will disappear (I feel sure of that). Should we care whether that happens in 200 years or 2,000....0 years? Some people will go into the end game and not come out. If it is unpleasant, so be it. It is going to happen. Why waste time worrying about the inevitable end(which I doubt any of us will live to see)? If the world as we know it ends in 200 years the imaginary people who might be born after that never will be. So no need to worry about something that will not happen. "Friends of the Earth", the "Save the Planet" Brigade? A bunch of Bozos. Let us worry about PEOPLE. (all of whom are alive now, or at least have been conceived. Nothing else is a person.).

At 02:16 PM on 08 Aug 2007, Robert Armstrong wrote:
I find it strange that a program that trys to deal in facts pandering to the unproven theory of evolution.

Robert, I find it strange that someone who can argue with the most proven evidential scientific theory is not able to spell. The word you are looking for is "tries" for that is the plural of try.

Of course it is sad, pandas are unique/irreplaceable/so lovely .... but hasn't it been the same throughout history....some species inevitably disappear....why, we don't really understand, but have to accept?

Hi Sally

You are correct in my spelling error, (product of a poorly evolved education system :-)) however it will hard to prove evolution. Natural selection is one thing, species changing to another species is quite another. I regret the loss of any species. However another one will not just evolve no matter how long we wait. Perhaps if Newsnight had factored in another cause, namely mans pure greed, the conclusions may be different.

Evolution is not hard to prove at all, Richard. It has been observed, both through fossil records and in laboratories, and is as provable as any other scientific theory.

Is it just me or did Kirsty's top make it look like she was wearing her boobs inside out (because of the pockets.) All it needed was two small brown dots in the middle of her pockets.

WE, as caretakers of this planet, have a responsibility to all creatures both great and small.

Dear Robert and Sally,
I known I am a sad, elderly relic that should really get a life outside grammar, but 'tries' in this context is not the plural of 'try' but the third person singular of the present tense of a verb. McLuhan was probably right (frightening long ago now) to say that the medium was the message. Education, education, education - eheu fugaces. Sorry, I am being maudlin.

We can't save ourselves, so let's make sure that all animals on the planet survive our disastrous presence.