Does it really matter if Polar bears die out?

[HertsBiker]

Well, does it? I can't see other than being a nice looking animal from a distance, what good they are. Are they part of our food chain or or they just an evolutionary dead end that we don't 'need' ? same goes for Penguins. Why the fuss if they go? am I being harsh?

[_Dan_]

If you're going to think like that, then does it really matter if we die out? I'm no tree hugger, but the planet and it's non-human inhabitants would without a doubt be better off without us!!

Edited by _Dan_ on Sunday 5th October 11:49

[Fittster]

If Polar bears goes it suggests that a whole food chain has gone.

However the planet will continue as it will we when are gone.

[esselte]

_Dan_ said:

If you're going to think like that, then does it really matter if we die out? I'm no tree hugger, but the planet and it's non-human inhabitants would without a doubt be better off without us!!

Edited by _Dan_ on Sunday 5th October 11:49

Don't you think species would become extinct at all then?

[jimothy]

You do realise that despite being added to the US most endangered list this year, the population is on the increase, something like its doubled in the last few years...

[andy400]

Species die out every day, just as 'new' species appear and/or are discovered every day.

To be fair, it is only the fluffy ones that people seem to give a toss about.

[Fittster]

andy400 said:

Species die out every day, just as 'new' species appear and/or are discovered every day.

And it's happening at a even rate of is the number of species reducing?

[bimsb6]

Fittster said:

andy400 said:

Species die out every day, just as 'new' species appear and/or are discovered every day.

And it's happening at a even rate of is the number of species reducing?

wtf ?

[paoloh]

Fittster said:

andy400 said:

Species die out every day, just as 'new' species appear and/or are discovered every day.

And it's happening at a even rate of is the number of species reducing?

In English please

[MrV]

If the bears die out then more seals live they eat more fish then fish stocks drop then we have less to eat fish wise ,well those who depend on fishing in that area any way

[Jon C]

HertsBiker said:

Well, does it? I can't see other than being a nice looking animal from a distance, what good they are. Are they part of our food chain or or they just an evolutionary dead end that we don't 'need' ? same goes for Penguins. Why the fuss if they go? am I being harsh?

Taste like chicken

[Westy Pre-Lit]

MrV said:

If the bears die out then more seals live they eat more fish then fish stocks drop then we have less to eat fish wise ,well those who depend on fishing in that area any way

Best they move then

[micky g]

There's plenty of polar bears and penguins - why would they be extinct any time soon?

[Simpo Two]

MrV said:

If the bears die out then more seals live they eat more fish then fish stocks drop then we have less to eat fish wise ,well those who depend on fishing in that area any way

May as well eat the bears then...

Nature extinguishes species that cannot survive naturally. Man's actions are also part of nature. However I agree that seems very harsh, because they're big and white and fluffy and the cubs look cute...

However if the threatened species was a particularly ugly kind of turd-eating bluebottle that spreads rabies, the greenies might not be so troubled. At least, they wouldn't be able to whip up public support with photos of it...

[okgo]

No.

[Bushmaster]

No it doesn't in itself, but it does if it a symptom or early indicator of a more serious threat.

Modern humans have been around for only 40 million years.

Neanderthals were around for 200 million years.

[NWTony]

Fittster said:

If Polar bears goes it suggests that a whole food chain has gone.

However the planet will continue as it will we when are gone.

Nah, I remember reading that 90% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct, so it appears that it makes no difference.

[10 Pence Short]

NWTony said:

Fittster said:

If Polar bears goes it suggests that a whole food chain has gone.

However the planet will continue as it will we when are gone.

Nah, I remember reading that 90% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct, so it appears that it makes no difference.

Unless you're one of the extinct ones. Then it's a bit st.

[Eric Mc]

Bushmaster said:

No it doesn't in itself, but it does if it a symptom or early indicator of a more serious threat.

Modern humans have been around for only 40 million years.

Neanderthals were around for 200 million years.

Modern humans have been around for 40 million years? Definitely not.
Neanderthals around for 200 million years? Totally incorrect.

The first primate ancestors had hardly emerged 40 million years ago.
The earliest recognisable human ancestors date back 6 million years and the first creatures we would take as being human appear less than 1 million years ago.
Neanderthals were quite recent in geological and evolutionary terms and were co-existant with fairly modern humans.

Dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.

Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 5th October 14:12

[10 Pence Short]

Eric Mc said:

Dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.

Which is coincidentally 3 weeks before Cilla Black was born.