Reintroducing an Apex Predator
- Thread starter NVP
- Start date
Seems like a good idea to bring these sorts of animals back to me - only seems logical that without an apex predator the other animals lower down the food chain will get out of balance. Eg that Dutch nature reserve that turned into horse-Auschwitz: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ment-backfires-as-thousands-of-animals-starve
'Resurrecting' dead species would just be a cool extension of that imo. Seems like an awesome thing to do!
Guess the alternative would be to try to artificially fill the role of whatever the missing predator by hunting the their natural prey - could be a draw for tourists and fur / meat by products to sell? Possibly not practical in many cases though.
'Resurrecting' dead species would just be a cool extension of that imo. Seems like an awesome thing to do!
Guess the alternative would be to try to artificially fill the role of whatever the missing predator by hunting the their natural prey - could be a draw for tourists and fur / meat by products to sell? Possibly not practical in many cases though.
Last edited:
The rewilding experiment in the Netherlands didn't really backfire, though. Massive amounts of suffering and death are normal for animals in a genuinely wild context. It's just that many people, especially "activists", have a very rosy-spectacled Disneyfied view of nature. There's no way to satisfy them either. If you have a genuinely wild environment they'll castigate you for not interfering in it to try to make it match their Disneyfied fantasies and if you do interfere in it they'll castigate you for not allowing nature. Or, as they see it, Nature. An entity, akin to a god. Or, in some cases, literally a god.
Using humans as the apex predator would be natural. It's the role humans filled in many environments. Despite being physiologically more suited to a scavenger/prey role in many ways, intelligence, social behaviour and extreme aptitude for tool use make humans eminently suited to the role of apex predator. Often too successfully. Unlike other apex predators, humans are able to farm. That breaks the link between predation and food supply, making sustained over-predation possible. For other apex predators, over-predation will kill them too and that often restores a balance. Humans are so massively successful that we've broken the system and we have to be able to maintain the balance ourselves rather than relying on natural processes. We're too powerful for natural processes. Personally, I think that the great filter hypothesis is probably true and that handling such an extreme degree of success is probably one of the filters. It's obviously extremely difficult for a species to maintain a viable and sustainable balance on a world by their own actions. We don't know how to do it. But we must do it. "playing god" is not a choice. It's a necessity. Is resurrecting extinct species part of a right answer? Maybe. Maybe not. There are many examples of well-meaning attempts at maintaining a balance going very badly wrong. They involved introducing an existing species rather than resurrecting an extinct species, but the basic problems are the same. Taking on the role of gods while having the knowledge and wisdom of mortals. It's a dicey business.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,349
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Komodo Dragons once hunted in Australia apparently, they yet to try that idea. Last I read they arent so far from getting something near to a mammoth. I just want a sabretooth
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,917
Wouldn't it be easier just to give some local teenagers free air rifles?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,202
The Wolf experiment at Yellow Stone and at a different level the re-introduction of Beavers have demonstrated how keystone species change the ecosystem. I'd support the reintroduction of the Tasmanian Tiger on that basis. The technical ability to resurrect the species sounds a bit more questionable.
I wish they'd get on and reintroduce wolves in Scotland to manage the deer population so the landscape can start to recover. It's completely insane that we spend so much time and effort culling them, although I guess that's mostly down to toff ****s that get their kicks from killing things.
I'd agree there is a strong Disney feeling with some of these activists, seemingly unhappy when humans interfere, but also unhappy when 'nature' turns out to be a cruel mistress. I think there were two big legitimate problems with that nature reserve though, as I see them: 1. Over-grazing actually damaged the ecology of the nature reserve and 2. Some herbivores would starve to death naturally in the wild, but far fewer. Could well be argued that a weak animal being killed by a wolf or whatever is much more humane, and natural, than letting it slowly starve to death.
There are examples of well meaning efforts going wrong, but our understanding of different ecosystems is always improving, and although there are risks, with a bit of proper management there's a good chance that we can really improve things.
That documentary they made with Richard Attenborough was quite good though. I liked the fact that they can clone a dinosaur from dino dna from a mosquito .They've literally made several films confirming that this is a terrible idea!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,766
- Location
- Welling, London
Everytime a large predator is talked about being reintroduced into the UK, all the farmers kick off about it
That they do! Though they tend to complain about a lot of things. This includes the ones I'm related to who frequently complain they have no money after they've just bought yet another range rover...
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,246
Two different things though OP is about resurrecting an extinct species but then of wanders off into rewilding
Resurrecting a thylacine is about as likely as resurrecting a mammoth at this point, in the "maybe theoretically possible" range but more likely science fiction in reality. In anycase there are already apex predators in predators in australia, they're called dingos
I agree, but it has to be managed and we have to expect things to go wrong sometimes. Maybe very badly wrong. Maybe "end human civilisation" levels of wrong. Maybe even "render the Earth uninhabitable" levels of wrong. We can't rely on nature any more. We're too numerous and too powerful. We have too large an effect. We have to manage the planet ourselves. And we don't really know how. As you say, understanding of ecosystems is improving. But it's imperfect. There is a good chance we can improve things and we have to try, but there are risks. I genuinely think this is a "great filter" type of situation.
I'm also reminded of a line from Bill Wurtz's superb "history of the entire world, i guess" video: "Let's save the planet, said everyone, not knowing how."