If in nature generally species of animals become stronger by natural selection, is human intervention for the preservation of animals always desirable?

We do not live in nature.There are only precious few places on earth that are still really nature. Whether we want it or not, man is responsible for that.

Man is very good at adapting the circumstances to the wishes.And as a result, our population has grown enormously: because the better we get to optimise our circumstances for our presence, the better we do it. Fortunately, increasing prosperity and industrialisation and development will also lead to a population decline!

Unfortunately, we are also responsible for the extinction of animals.Large and small. I recently read an article that said that insects, not just bees but all sorts, are greatly declining. That is not good. That’s really not good. We can not do without insects.

So maintaining animal populations is not only adorable, in the case of large zoo beasts (of which other answers have beautiful examples) but just really necessary for our own survival.

Selection can only take place from a healthy population.

We must begin by establishing that all species change by evolution.There is variation, and the most successful variants (not always the strongest, which depends on the environment) have a greater chance of reproducing. This is a process of equality.

Many human influences change the environment very quickly.As a result, (1) The population often decreases rapidly and produces less variation and (2) is mainly selected on the survival of human influence. Without intervention, the natural selection will generally be less effective.

Please also note that changes in the population of 1 animal can have a major impact on the balance of the ecosystem, and that humans can also have a considerable burden.In time, intervention can also be in our own interests.

In the Zoo of Antwerp they are super happy with the birth of two Addax girls aka Mendes-antilopes in the context of a breeding program.

In the Zoo they now have ten, while in nature there are only a hundred jumping around.This makes the addax the rarest antelope in the world.

Da s positive human intervention.

One of the most endangered species is the borneosis orang Oetan.Its habitat, the tropical rainforest, shrinks through deforestation for the construction of rubber and palm oil plantations, and the red-light monkeys are victims of poachers. Also, Orang Oetanina s only get a young every 6 to 8 years and that is the sloest of all land mammals on this kind of.

The human species can stand out there: plant forests and plan fewer children.The orang orangutan himself would sail with positive human intervention.

And then there is also human intervention that is accompanied by controversy.

Do the giant Panda s, d脙 漏 WWF Ambassadors, have to be saved with persistent pampering of extinction?

The Panda s belong to the Carnivora, yes, the meat eaters, but in the course of evolution have completely switched to plants, the veganism.The result is that they are half to three quarters of the time sitting on their bamboo to chew 脙 漏 n produce large amounts of manure.

Animal parks that lease Panda s of the Chinese, lure a lot of spectators who come to look at those chewing Panda s.At the beginning at least. It has been calculated that the maintenance of Zo n darling with smokey eyes costs five times as much as that of an elephant.

Oh, and because the ladies panda are fertile only 脙 漏 脙 漏 n A three days a year, men are stimulated via human intervention to pass to the deed.With pornography movies.

Giant panda in full action in Pairi Daiza

Not always.

But sometimes it can be no different.

If other animals, or people, suffer from the consequences of their presence, it must be able to intervene.

And I do not mean normal animal behaviour, but too large a quantity of animals that show that behaviour.

The nature that red is though.With or without humanity.. Which is actually just nature.

No, domesticated animals also appear to have smaller brains.But because we also exert influence on nature (through climate change and forest hoods), many species will be extinct thanks to us if we do not intervene.

Yes and No.The question is for whom it is desirable. Basically, it will rust the nature of her ass what we do. The only (as far as known) kind that deals with these kinds of moral issues are we ourselves. Human intervention always has a human reason in the base. Think of pest formation, failed harvests, illnesses that endanger our food or our health, food shortages, social media views. In addition, the disappearance of a species can also have large, often unpredictable, consequences for whole ecosystems and thus again on our crops, food stocks and health. We also sometimes try to save some sort of extinction with man and power. A number of rhinos, for example, have a personal 24/7 waiting to prevent them from being shot by poachers, as trophy or for trade in their horns (which are often already taken preventively). These animals have a great tourist value for the countries concerned, and are also symbolic of our struggle to keep control of nature, but especially ourselves. In the numbers in which these animals are still present they would rapidly extinction by natural selection. Perhaps there is also a debt aspect: we have reduced them to these numbers, so we have to recover these numbers. People are also very empathic beings, if it looks somewhat like a human (eyes, mouth, limbs, somewhat showing of facial expressions that resemble human emotions) we are quickly inclined to want these animals 鈧?虄redden . No one who chains himself to a bulldozer because a micro-organism threatens to die out. Protecting baby seals from dead clubs for their fur is seen as a serious crime, while we daily hundreds of millions of pigs, chickens and cows to help soap for their flesh, milk, eggs and skin. You can also say that we are incredibly good for the cows, chickens and pigs. Evolutionarily seen these animals fall among the most successful species on our planet. Nature will be the sausage creature. That we find one worse than the other is purely a human value, and this makes us who we are. I don’t want to make it seem that it all doesn’t matter. That’s what it does. For us. Intervention in nature gives us the feeling of being able to sustain our people. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Leave a Reply